20000222, Senate Debates - Tuesday, February 22, 2000 · 2008-08-05 · Oral Answer to Question Tuesday, February 22, 2000 769 Under the Fifth Schedule of the Tobago House of Assembly

National Chutney Foundation (Inc’n) Bill Tuesday, February 22, 2000767

SENATE

Tuesday, February 22, 2000The Senate met at 10.30 a.m.

PRAYERS

[MR. PRESIDENT in the Chair]NATIONAL CHUTNEY FOUNDATION (INC’N) BILL

Bill to incorporate the National Chutney Foundation of Trinidad and Tobagoand matters incidental thereto. [Sen. Dr. The Hon. Daphne Phillips]; read the firsttime.

Motion made, That the next stage be taken at the next sitting of the Senate.[Sen. The Hon. W. Mark]

Question put and agreed to.PAPERS LAID

1. Report of the Auditor General of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobagoon the financial statements of the San Juan/Laventille RegionalCorporation for the year ended December 31, 1997. [The Minister ofFinance (Sen. The Hon. Brian Kuei Tung)]

2. Report of the Auditor General of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago on theAccounts and Financial Statements of the Siparia Regional Corporation forthe year ended December 31, 1996. [Sen. The Hon. B. Kuei Tung]

3. Report of the Auditor General of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago on theAccounts and Financial Statements of the Siparia Regional Corporation forthe year ended December 31, 1997. [Sen. The Hon. B. Kuei Tung]

ORAL ANSWER TO QUESTION

Nipdec Cold Storage Facilities(Closure of)

10. Sen. Cynthia Alfred asked the Minister of Agriculture, Land andMarine Resources.

A. Is the hon. Minister of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources awarethat the NIPDEC cold storage facilities in Tobago have closed down dueto a lack of approximately two million dollars ($2m) needed for therefurbishment of the facilities?

Oral Answer to Question Tuesday, February 22, 2000

768

B. Is the hon. Minister also aware that due to the closure, the Flying FishIndustry in Tobago is virtually at a standstill leaving hundreds of Tobagofishermen, fish processors, other workers and their dependants severelydisadvantaged?

If the answers to A and B are in the affirmative, will the hon. Minister informthis House:

(a) if any measures are proposed by his Ministry to effect thenecessary refurbishment to the Nipdec Cold Storage facilities toalleviate the unemployment problem created in the fishingindustry;

(b) how soon remedial action will be taken?

The Minister of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources (Hon. TrevorSudama): Mr. President, yes, I have become aware that Nipdec’s cold storagefacilities in Tobago have closed and that approximately $2 million is required forrefurbishment work. This information was obtained through the print andelectronic media.

I am conscious of the fact that as a result of the closure there will be adverseconsequences to fishermen, fish processors and other workers. However, it isnecessary for me to give some background information on the subject whichwould clarify Government’s role.

The National Insurance Property Development Company Limited (NIPDEC) isa privately owned and operated agency and is a subsidiary of the NationalInsurance Board. The Nipdec Warehouse Complex located on Old GovernmentFarm Road in Tobago consists of dry storage facilities comprising 80,000 sq ft.and cold storage facilities comprising 200,000 sq. ft. with a holding capacity ofone million kilograms of frozen product. To date, the lease to the lands on whichthe warehouse stands has not been finalized by the Tobago House of Assembly.Also, financial support has not been provided by the Tobago House of Assemblyto the facility and Nipdec has carried the financial burden of the facility. Nipdechas provided only minimum maintenance to the cold storage facilities because ofits unprofitability.

The current situation is that a number of cold storage units are non-operationaldue to lack of maintenance. The technology currently utilized and equipment andother infrastructure require upgrading for greater cost-effectiveness. However,some areas of the facilities are still operational.


Under the Fifth Schedule of the Tobago House of Assembly Act, No. 40 of1996 responsibility for fisheries rest with the Tobago House of Assembly as wellas for infrastructure. I am advised that in August 1999, Nipdec met withstakeholders in Tobago including representatives of the Division of Agriculture,Forestry and Marine Affairs of the Tobago House of Assembly, the Tourism andIndustrial Development Company of Trinidad and Tobago Limited and the fishingindustry to review the situation. An outcome of this meeting was the preparationof a joint proposal that was forwarded to the Tobago House of Assembly for itsconsideration. In essence, the proposal recommended:

(i) A capital injection by the Tobago House of Assembly of TT $2.1 millionto refurbish the facilities.

May I also mention that $2.1 million is barely one-twentieth of the expenditure onRingbang and one-sixth of the investment in ADDA.

(ii) A scaling down of the size of the facilities taking into consideration thepercentage utilization which fluctuated between 10 to 30 per cent.

(iii) The lease of additional lands by the Tobago House of Assembly toNipdec to expand the dry storage facility which was the profitablesection of the venture. The intention was to place the complex on a moresound financial footing.

A comparison of the financial reports from the dry storage facilities and the coldstorage facilities show that whereas a profit was made by the former, that is, thedry storage facilities, losses were incurred by the latter.

Since the proposals were put forward there has been no response from theTobago House of Assembly. In these circumstances, Nipdec has taken a positionto present the case to its board with the recommendation to either reinvest in thefacility or to close it down. However, a private entity in Tobago related to thefishing industry has presented a proposal for a joint venture partnership withNipdec, the terms and conditions of which have yet to be finalized. In the interim,discussions are ongoing between the Division of Agriculture, Forestry and MarineAffairs of the Tobago House of Assembly and the Tobago fishing industry. Thankyou, Mr. President.

Sen. Prof. Spence: Mr. President, the hon. Minister seems to be putting theblame on the Tobago House of Assembly. Is he aware of the Tobago House ofAssembly Act, section 25 No. 1 which, in effect, makes the Cabinet of Trinidadand Tobago have overall responsibility in spite of Schedule 5, because this is usedin various ways including tourism by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago?


770

Hon. T. Sudama: Mr. President, the Government’s actions are governed bythe budget provisions. In the formulation of the budget, the Tobago House ofAssembly has the opportunity to make an input either directly or through theMinistry of Tobago Affairs. Therefore, since no provision was requested withrespect to the restoration of the cold storage facilities of Nipdec it only stands toreason that that was not considered a priority of the Tobago House of Assembly.Therefore, the Government had not taken that into consideration, did not make aprovision for that in the budget. That being so, the question of whether thisexpenditure could be met has to be dealt with as a separate item and as a result ofseparate representation. May I add that the whole thrust of the Government is toallow the private sector to get more and more involved in the economic affairs ofTrinidad and Tobago, and this is why the initiative was taken by Nipdec in orderto see whether this service that was provided could have been put on a profitablebasis.

10.40 a.m.Sen. Alfred: Supplemental question, Mr. President. Is the hon. Minister

saying, therefore, that if the Tobago House of Assembly is not in a position tomake good on this whole question of the Nipdec cold storage facilities, the centralgovernment would not take a hand and do something, perhaps to advance themoney to the Tobago House of Assembly, so that the facilities could be put inplace?

Hon. T. Sudama: Mr. President, the Government has overall responsibility,that is true, but you all are aware of how jealously the Tobago House of Assemblyguards its responsibilities under the Tobago House of Assembly Act.

Sen. Montano: I would like to ask, is the Minister saying that the $3.5 millionbeing spent on the savannah is more important than the repair of this facility?[Desk thumping]

Hon. T. Sudama: Mr. President, I am saying no such thing. I am saying thatthe normal way in which budget provisions are made is such that a request ismade during the course of the preparation of the budget for certain items ofcapital expenditure to be included in the budget.

Sen. Montano: Well, Mr. President, the Government has now spentapproximately $6 million paving the savannah. Is that in the budget to be passedin September?


Hon. T. Sudama: That is a question more usefully directed to the Minister ofFinance. [Laughter]

Sen. Dr. Mc Kenzie: I have just two questions to ask the hon. Minister. Sir, Iwould like to find out from you, when were the proposals from the organizationstrying to salvage the thing put forward to the THA? Secondly, I get the impressionthat Nipdec, as a private organization, could not be catered for in the budget. I donot know whether I am wrong. You are saying that there are no budgetaryallocations, no requests, et cetera, but you started off by saying that Nipdec is aprivate organization. Am I getting you right?

Hon. T. Sudama: I am not quite clear as to what you are getting at in yoursecond question. However, let me say that the information that I have with respectto the private entity, which is the All Tobago Fisher Folk Association, says thatthat organization has expressed an interest but I do not have the information as tothe exact date on which that interest was expressed.

ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS

The Minister of Public Administration (Sen. The Hon Wade Mark): Mr.President, I beg to move that we proceed with “Bills Second Reading”, item No.1, before “Government Business Motions”.

Agreed to.REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES (AMDT.) BILL

[Second Day]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on question [February 15, 2000]:

That the Bill be now read a second time.Question again proposed.Mr. President: May I point out that when we adjourned on the last occasion

the hon. Minister had started his response and had utilized 14 minutes of hisspeaking time.

Dr. The Hon. H. Rafeeq: Mr. President, on the last occasion when the Senatewas adjourned I was, in fact, responding to the comments and queries made byMembers who participated in the debate. Today I intend to be very brief and justdeal with the issues on the Bill itself.

The Regional Health Authorities Act makes provisions for public servants,that is the monthly-paid public servants, when they transfer from the publicservice to the regional health authorities, but the Act is very silent in terms of the

Regional Health Authorities (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, February 22, 2000[HON. DR. H. RAFEEQ]

772

daily-rated workers. This must have been an oversight or omission on the part ofthose who were drafting the Bill at that time. This Bill before us seeks to correctthat oversight or that omission when this Bill was, in fact, drafted.

A concern has been expressed that this Bill seeks to entrench a particularunion as the union that will represent the daily-rated workers when they transfer.There is no such intention in this Bill. What is happening here is that, just as theparent Act says that it does give the public servants some degree of comfort andconfidence that when they are transferred across to the RHAs they will continue tobe represented by the association that represents them at present, that is what thisBill seeks to do, that the daily-rated workers, when they transfer from the publicservice to the RHAs, will have the representative union that they have at present.

Mr. President, this is governed by two things; first of all, the IndustrialRelations Act. Subsection (3) of the Bill says that this is subject to the IndustrialRelations Act. It is governed by that. Secondly, Mr. President, in the parent Actitself, section 34 says:

“Employees may form an association which may be registered as a tradeunion or may join a trade union.”

We know that it does take some time getting things in place to have a unionrecognized and registered by the Recognition Board. As I said, the purpose of thisBill is to give that confidence, support and comfort to workers so that when theyare transferred they will not be left alone but will be represented by the union thatrepresents them at present, until they decide to take any further action as they maywant to take. Mr. President, I had discussed the issues that have been raised withthe office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel and the office of the ChiefPersonnel Officer. They are comfortable with these provisions and I do not thinkthat the daily-rated workers should be punished because their leader happens to bea government Senator.

Mr. President, I just intend to make one small amendment at the committeestage and that is where the words, “daily-rated workers” appear in the Bill, wewill amend that to read, “hourly, daily and weekly rated employees”. They fallunder one category. Mr. President, I beg to move. [Desk thumping]

Question put and agreed to.Bill accordingly read the second time.Bill committed to a committee of the whole Senate.

Regional Health Authorities (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, February 22, 2000773

Senate in committee.Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.Question proposed, That clause 3 stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman: There is a proposed amendment by the hon. Minister. Has itbeen circulated?

Dr. Rafeeq: Yes, I think it has been circulated.

Mr. Chairman: Have you all received a copy of the proposed amendment bythe hon. Minister? It has not been circulated.

Dr. Rafeeq: Mr. Chairman, the amendment says that where the words, “daily-rated workers” appear in two places in the Bill, they will be substituted by thewords, “hourly, daily and weekly-rated employees”. I am sorry if it has not beencirculated but that is the substance of the amendment. I beg to move that thisclause be amended as stated.

Sen. Prof. Spence: Could you read it again?

Dr. Rafeeq: In the proposed section 34(a) delete the words, “daily-ratedworkers” in the two places where they occur and substitute the words, “hourly,daily and weekly-rated employees”.

Mr. Chairman: Any contributions?

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.Question put and agreed to, That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the

Senate.Senate resumed.Bill reported, with amendment, read the third time and passed.

POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY (AMDT.) BILL

Order for second reading read.

The Minister of National Security (Sen. Brig. The Hon. JosephTheodore): [Desk thumping] Mr. President, I beg to move,

That a Bill to amend the Police Complaints Authority Act, No. 17 of 1993 andfor matters connected therewith or incidental thereto be now read a secondtime.

Police Complaints Authority (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, February 22, 2000[HON. J. THEODORE]

774

The Police Complaints Authority, Mr. President, was established by Act No.17 of 1993 in recognition of the need for an organization, independent of thepolice service, to which members of the public could address complaints aboutthe conduct of police officers. Indeed, the ultimate aim of the authority has beenstated to be, and I quote, “to address concerns by aggrieved citizens in a mannerwhich reduces the skepticism associated with closed investigations relying solelyon the discretion of the police service”. This came about, Mr. President, becausethe general public complained that it was difficult to get any satisfaction whenpolice investigated their fellow members. So this Complaints Authority wasformed and it, in fact, took office and started functioning in 1996.

The Police Complaints Authority’s major objectives, Mr. President, are toreceive complaints on the conduct of any police officer and to monitor theinvestigation of a complaint by the Complaints Division of the police service soas to ensure that the investigation is conducted impartially. Perhaps I ought toexplain here, Mr. President, that the Police Complaints Authority does not itselfinvestigate complaints or do so on its own. There is a Police Complaints Divisionwithin the police service. The Police Complaints Authority directs thosecomplaints to the Police Complaints Division.

10.55 a.m.

Where they have the authority, Mr. President, is that they will monitor theinvestigation of the complaints sent to the Police Complaints Division and ensurethat the investigation is conducted impartially. The Police Complaints Authorityalso reports to the Minister from time to time, or at his request.

Since the office of the authority opened on May 1, 1996, the authority hasbeen able to inspire confidence on its monitoring and supervision of theinvestigation of the complaints. I will explain later how they go about doing that.

In its annual report for the period May 1, 1998 to April 30, 1999, the PoliceComplaints Authority received complaints from 769 complainants. This showed asignificant decrease in the number of persons making complaints to the authority,there having been 1,223 complainants in 1996/1997 and 1,026 in the 1997/1998period. I have used the term “complainants” because one complainant can make acomplaint which will result in it being identified under different headings and theone complainant, if the complaints are taken as complaints, could actually end upmaking several complaints which fall under different headings. I will give you anexample.

Police Complaints Authority (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, February 22, 2000775

For instance, harassment is one of the headings; impolite behaviour is anotherheading, and a complaint could actually fall into both categories, so the number ofcomplainants is more significant than the number of complaints, which are alsostated in the report of the Complaints Authority.

The major objective of this Bill is to extend the jurisdiction of the PoliceComplaints Authority by enabling the authority to deal with complaints madeagainst members of the police, special reserve police and the municipal police.

The Bill also seeks to ensure accountability on the part of the authority byimposing requirements as to the keeping of the authority’s accounts and financialrecords. The reason for trying to extend the authority of the Police ComplaintsAuthority is because complaints have been received from members of the publicabout members of the special reserve police and the municipal police.

The Police Complaints Authority Act gives the authority the power to receiveand investigate complaints made against police officers who fall under the PoliceService Act, for misconduct towards the public. There are a number of factorswhich now require the inclusion of the special reserve police and municipal policeservice within the ambit, “purview of the Police Complaints Authority”.

The municipal police are now being established and developed at the variouscorporations and some of the powers that we hope the Police ComplaintsAuthority will be given will allow them to investigate complaints made againstboth these groups.

Under section 18 of the Special Reserve Police Act, it states:“Every member of the Special Reserve Police while on duty in the capacity ofa member shall have, exercise and enjoy all the powers, authorities, privilegesand immunities, and shall perform all duties and have all the responsibilitiesas a member of the Police Service constituted under the Police Service Act.”The Municipal Corporations Act, No. 21 of 1990, states at section 53 that:“Every member of a Municipal Police Force, in addition to the special powersvested in him under this Act, has in respect of the whole of Trinidad andTobago all the powers, privileges and immunities conferred on a constable byCommon Law, and also all powers, privileges, immunities and liabilitiesconferred or imposed on a constable or on a First Division or Second Divisionpolice officer of corresponding rank by the Police Service Act…”

Therefore, it is felt that there should be some means of dealing with theconduct reported by members of the public of members of the special reserve


776

police and the municipal police. Some of the complaints received by the PoliceComplaints Authority have been of a serious nature but, because of the authority’sinability to handle these complaints, given the constraints of the present Act, thesehave had to be sent to the Commissioner of Police for his attention.

Members of the public do not readily appreciate the differentiation betweenthe groups of officers, that is, members of the special reserve police and themunicipal police and, should there be an abuse of power and infringement of therights of citizens by SRPs or municipal police, the redress available to affectedmembers of the public would be limited by the fact that the authority, at present,cannot investigate such complaints against the special reserve police or themunicipal police officers.

So, this Bill, in effect, is seeking to extend the authority of the PoliceComplaints Authority to deal with all members of the police service, be they part-time or municipal, and to address complaints coming from the public about thosemembers. At present, the authority and the Commissioner of Police are providedwith reports from the Complaints Division after full investigation of a complaint.

As I said, I would speak a bit about how the Police Complaints Authoritysupervises and monitors the activities of the Police Complaints Division. Oncethere is no request for review of the findings, the Commissioner is empowered bysection 27 of the Act to take such actions as he thinks fit with regard to policeofficers acting in accordance with the Police Service Commission Regulations orthe Police Service Regulations.

When a complaint goes to the Police Complaints Authority, it is passed on tothe Police Complaints Division. They, in turn, are required to conduct aninvestigation. The investigation may have one of three results. It may be foundthat there are no grounds for the investigation to be conducted and that will bereported to the Complaints Authority which would look at the evidence and themanner in which the decision was taken, and either agree or disagree with thefindings of the Police Complaints Division.

Secondly, there could be a decision that there are grounds for action to betaken against the officer in question. That goes back to the Police ComplaintsAuthority which will then be required to confirm that decision and take steps toensure that the action recommended, is taken by the Commissioner of Police.

Sen. Montano: Thank you for giving way. Minister, you said that there areabout a thousand and something complaints made against the police. How manyof those were actually made against the SRPs and the others?


Sen. Brig. The Hon. J. Theodore: I cannot say, but what I do know is thatcomplaints started coming against the SRPs unsolicited. But, as I said, people see apolice officer and they do not bother to figure out whether he is an SRP. Theywear the same uniform and, as I pointed out earlier, they have the same power andauthority as a regular police officer. So, we had to find some means to bring themunder the umbrella so that they, too, would be investigated. I do not know ifthat—

Sen. Montano: Thank you.

Sen. Brig. The Hon. J. Theodore: So, with the inclusion of the specialreserve police in this proposed amendment Bill, it will allow the Commissioner totake action in respect of special reserve police officers in accordance with theSpecial Reserve Police Act. With regard to municipal police, these officers are tobe disciplined in accordance with section 60 of the Municipal Corporations Act,No. 21 of 1990.

What is interesting here is that the three organizations are all governed bydifferent regulations and they do not all fall under the Police Service Act. There isthe regular police with their Act, the special reserve police with their own Act andthe municipal police with their Act as well. So, it does impose restrictions on theCommissioner of Police who is, in fact, the commandant of all these policeofficers. He is the one who grants them their precepts, determines the trainingthey do and assists with the establishment of the municipal corporations police.So, he is at a disadvantage to deal with these people.

I will give an example. Recently, there was an incident which occurred at CityHall when a person was being chased by two people who had attacked him. Hereported to the city police and they told him to go two blocks away to the police atthe Criminal Investigation Division at the corner of Duke and St. Vincent Streets.

Now, I am aware that the Mayor is investigating so, again, it appears thatbecause of this deficiency in the Act, the Mayor has to take it upon himself nowto conduct some sort of investigation. But, then again, the Commissioner ofPolice is really the rightful authority to conduct an investigation and eitherterminate their services or deal with them under the conditions that exist in theappropriate Act.

On the matter of accounts, which is one of the amendments, if we look at theBill, we would see under clause 3, by amending the description of a police officer,we have included municipal police and special reserve police.

Under clause 4, we are saying that:


778

“The Authority shall keep accurate and proper accounts…”

Now, the authority is an autonomous body as contemplated by the Act and shouldbe responsible for the management of its financial affairs, but the authority doesnot report to Parliament; it does not have its accounts audited. What we areseeking to do here is to ensure that the authority would follow the correctprocedures and this amendment requires that all accounts and records are to bekept:

“…in accordance with internationally and locally recognized accountingstandards, principles and practices…”

The authority must submit its annual report to the Minister on its financialactivities for each year and the Minister may also require the production of a copyof its audited accounts. This report and audited statement is to be laid inParliament by the Minister.

Another area that has been neglected, which through practice has revealeditself, has to do with the manner of making reports. Under clause 5 of theamendment which deals with section 21 of the Act, we are dealing with:

“…a person makes a complaint in writing to the Authority…”

What happens, in effect, I myself receive complaints from the public, writtenin hand, complaining against a police officer. I pass that complaint on to thePolice Authority, but what we find under the Act is that no action could be takenbecause the Act itself says a person wishing to make a complaint shall do so inwriting to the police officer in charge of a police station or to the authority on theform contained in the schedule. So, unless it is put on this form, the complaintwill not be addressed. This means more “toing” and “froing” and the personhaving to come in now and get a form on which to put the complaint.

11.10 a.m.This could lead to a certain amount of frustration. A number of complainants,

we have found, simply never bother to pursue the issue. They cannot be botheredbecause it seems to be a waste of time, and they would have already drawn theconclusion that very little will come of it. This clause is seeking to clear up thatomission which would allow a normally written complaint to be addressed.

The Bill amends section 21 of the Act to allow the authority, in its discretion,to deal with the complaints which were not on the said form as contained in theSchedule, but simply in writing to the authority. It will make it much easier,


because I am not quite sure anybody knows where to find these forms—unlessthey go to the authority and they are given one.

The other area of concern in this Bill deals with the disposition of complaints.When a complaint is made to the Police Complaints Authority, this complaint, asI said, is submitted to the Police Complaints Division for investigation. After fullinvestigation, the division submits a report on its investigation, findings andrecommendations, to the Commissioner of Police and to the authority. Theauthority in its direct supervisory capacity then scrutinizes this report. This mayresult in a further investigation, if they are not satisfied with the manner ofdisposition suggested, or the authority may notify the complainant of its findingsif it is satisfied with its disposition. This is where it becomes a bit difficult. Itappears as though the authority has the right to notify the complainant, where thedisposition is in favour of the complainant but not otherwise.

The Act actually provides for complainants, who are dissatisfied with theauthority’s decision on the matter, to apply for a review of that decision. Then thePolice Complaints Authority does this either independently or with the assistanceof the Police Complaints Division, or by the holding of an independent hearing.Simply telling a complainant that the matter has been disposed of, is notsufficient. The person may not agree with the decision and appeal, and the wholematter has to go back to the Police Complaints Division for further investigations.The Police Complaints Authority, itself, will take a part to ensure that theinvestigation is carried out to the satisfaction of the complainant.

Briefly, from May 01, 1998—April 30, 1999 there were no applications forreview in 983 cases. In the other 51 cases there were applications for review andthe authority has now satisfactorily concluded these applications. What I amtrying to show here is that the authority is up-to-date with the complaints it hasbeen dealing with. There have been applications for review in 51 cases and theauthority has reported that these matters have been resolved.

Section 30 of the Act is amended to allow the authority to inform a personwho has made a complaint of the circumstances when the authority is not satisfiedwith the manner of the disposition of such complaint. I need to explain this, Mr.President. When the authority is satisfied with how the matter has been resolvedby the Police Complaints Division, it has the right to notify the complainant. Theconverse does not apply. Where the authority is not satisfied, and where thefurther investigation or inquiry has to take place, nobody tells the complainant,because the Police Complaints Division does not have the right to contact thecomplainant to tell that person: “We are continuing the inquiry, or we are not


780

satisfied with the results and the Police Complaints Authority has asked us tocontinue the investigation.” What we do, we get letters from complainantssaying: “I reported this matter X months ago and I have heard nothing. I came tothe hearing and nobody has contacted me since.” What we are trying to do is toensure that the complainant is told, in both cases, what is the state of affairs as faras his or her complaint is concerned. This amendment will deal with that becausepreviously, the authority was not expressly given the power under the Act. It isallowed to inform the complainant where it is satisfied with the manner ofdisposition, but this omission will now allow it to notify the complainant when itis dissatisfied with the decision and to inform that person that the matter is beingfurther investigated.

All these issues came about from experience and matters brought to theattention of the authority. It is the Police Complaints Authority, itself, whichbrought this to the ministry’s attention—to point out that they do have a problemas far as the complainant goes, because they were wondering whether they shouldtell the minister that they were not satisfied and maybe the minister would tell thecomplainant, or maybe they should ask the Commissioner to tell the complainant,or whether it is the Police Complaints Division. This amendment will make itquite clear that the authority which receives the complaint and is responsible foroverseeing its investigation, will tell the complainant either way: “Yes they aresatisfied, and the matter has been resolved. The action has been taken against theofficer in question, or it has been found that there is no case to answer and nofurther action will be taken.” Or, on the other hand, where they are not satisfiedwith the investigations conducted by the Police Complaints Division, they willalso see it fit and have the authority to notify the complainant.

In effect, these amendments, Mr. President, are simply expanding on theprovisions that are within the existing Act. In no way does it change the meaningor the role of the Police Complaints Authority. From the point of view ofaccountability, the authority will be required to provide its accounts which will belaid in Parliament. From the point of view of expanding its responsibility, theamendments will include the special reserve police and the municipal police.From the point of view of investigating the complaints, the issue of thecomplainants being advised on the status of the complaints means theseamendments will certainly satisfy the Police Complaints Authority, who wouldwelcome such amendments, which will permit them to get on with their job ofdealing with complaints against police. Police now, we trust, will include specialreserve police and police of the municipal corporations.


Mr. President, this, in effect, is the purpose of the amendments. I beg to move.[Desk thumping]

Mr. President: Hon. Senators, certain Members of the Senate, includingmyself, are required to perform some official duties between 12 noon and 2.00p.m. I would therefore, at this stage, wish to suspend the sitting until 2.30 p.m.

11.20 a.m.: Sitting suspended.2.30 p.m.: Sitting resumed.Mr. President: Hon. Senators, when the sitting was suspended this morning,

the hon. Minister of National Security had just completed the presentation of theBill. I shall now propose the question for debate.

Question proposed.Sen. Muhummad Shabazz: Mr. President, at the outset, what this Bill seeks

to do, seems, indeed, to be a very good thing. We on this side will have noobjections at all to policemen and people in the services who have greatresponsibility thrust upon them, being disciplined and being brought in line to dothe proper thing because, indeed, they must be exemplars. People will look atwhat they are doing and expect the best examples from them.

As a matter of fact:“The Bill seeks to amend the Police Complaints Authority Act, No. 17 of1993, inter alia, to extend the jurisdiction of the Police Complaints Authority(hereinafter referred to as “the Authority”) by conferring on the Authority thepower to deal with complaints made against members of the Special ReservePolice and Municipal Police.”

We say that, indeed, that is a good thing. When we look at what is happening withthe Special Reserve Police in this country and knowing that in this Parliament wehave already had much dialogue with the Minister as to how the SRPs in thiscountry are being treated, I feel that when the Minister brings a Bill like this to theParliament, somehow, we on this side find it difficult to support it.

The reason we find it difficult to support this Bill is not because the intent isnot good, but you cannot treat people in the way that the SRPs are being treated.They are not being rewarded for things they do and for the type of work they do,but yet you are seeking ways to punish them. Is this Minister only adisciplinarian?

The question came up to this Minister before about payments for the SRPs. Hepromised that he will look into it and do something, but these promises have been

Police Complaints Authority (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, February 22, 2000[SEN. SHABAZZ]

782

going on for over the last four years. He may say that it was happening before, butthis Minister who gives his word—somebody I respected who would stand by hisword—the way he is treating the SRPs is—the words I want to use could becomeunparliamentary—he is treating them with total disrespect, and I will make thatcase and show you, Mr. President, but he wants to bring the SRPs to bedisciplined. I do not know what it is.

I stood and fought with this Minister, and I am clear on that, to pay the SRPs. I hadto fight with him to pay the soldiers and, today, the soldiers are not even paid all themoney that they are owed. They are still being owed and all this Minister is saying inhis good, happy, jolly way is that they are going to be paid, “I will look into it”.

The last time I asked the Minister a question about the SRPs, he said, “If theinformation is brought to me, I will look into it and deal with it.” The informationwas brought to him, but it has not been dealt with. As a matter of fact, one ofthese SRPs who resigned has since died and no money has been forthcoming tohim or his family. My point is: if you want to discipline the SRPs, treat them asthough they are people, give them what is due to them and then let us talkdiscipline. Do not start to talk discipline first. Do not start to talk putting themover the coals. Do not start to talk “licks” to them and you are not giving themwhat is due to them.

This is a scenario with this Government all the time, at all levels. Let me justmake this case a little better. Special reserve police are on duty at all policestations in this country, and the Minister is aware of that. They work at all policeposts and in all areas of the police service. Special reserve police work in theImmigration Department, Government Printery, the Red House. We see them herein the Red House daily, working and protecting us, all over. They work at theMinistry of Works and Transport, the Hall of Justice, Whitehall and the Forensiclaboratory. They do the same duties as the regular police.

Some are drivers at all police stations in Trinidad and Tobago. The bulk ofpolicemen who serve summons and execute warrants for the Court and ProcessDepartment, are the SRPs; they outnumber the regular police in this department.The Minister is not doing anything about regularizing them. This Minister soughtto make a big joke about regularizing them the last time. He said, “Regularizingdoes not mean that we would make them regular, but we will put them in thesame situation and take them back to their regular position,” which was nothingfor them. He made a joke and he laughed and had fun and nothing has beenhappening with these special reserve police again.


Mr. President, regarding remuneration, SRPs who serve full-time are entitledto the same pay, salary, meal allowance and COLA. They do not get a houseallowance or any medical benefits. The hon. Minister would get up and tell us thatit was the PNM who started that. For four years they have had this matter to dealwith; four years this hon. Minister who is a military person—as a matter of fact,he may be, if my recollection is correct, the first military person who is anAttorney General in Trinidad and Tobago who should be caring for the servicepeople in this country and doing absolutely nothing about it. [Interruption] Mr.President, I am sorry, he is a Brigadier; sorry Brigadier. He is the Minister ofNational Security. I am sorry for promoting you. He was the first member of theDefence Service who is a military person and who is, indeed, the Minister ofNational Security.

We thought that we would see care and love for the men who worked aroundhim, that he was someone who understood. I do not want to say that he is like therest of them, that may be out of order, but he seems not to be different fromeverybody who was there before him. Because of his training, where he camefrom and because of the care he should have, I think that he is worse. He isappearing to be worse.

No house allowance, no medical or dental benefits, no gratuity and pension.Officers killed in the line of duty only get compassion lump sum on the advice ofthe Cabinet. So when a man is killed in the line of duty, the Cabinet determineshow much money is going to be paid and we know that they could pay how theywant depending on how it is. I do not want to be joking about that, I think that thisis a serious thing. No injury benefits for the SRPs, but this goodly Minister bringsa Bill to this Senate to tell us that he wants to discipline them. When peoplecomplain on them, he wants the authority to do something with them. I wish thatit was the other way around, where they would be disciplining him, then he wouldunderstand that what he is doing here, all how I look at it, could never go down asa good thing.

There is a clause in the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service regulations that sayswhen an SRP is called for full-time duty he is entitled to all amenities and benefits as theregular service. However, this was never given to SRPs. Volunteers of the fire service,the prison service and defence force were regularized in their respective services, thisnever happened to the SRPs. Some of the SRPs feel that they are being victimized bybeing absorbed into the regular police service.

You have to take the whole thing into question. The SRPs are working likeeverybody else; they are working next to the policemen. They are armed with


784

their revolvers and working with guns just like everybody else, doing the samework, and yet when you are ready to take them into the services you start to tellthem that they are over-aged and they have flat feet. All of a sudden you realizethat they have flat feet, “their belly too big”, they not fit, all that nonsense just notto bring them into the regular service, yet you have them doing regular policework.

After the 1990 coup, the then government promised to absorb the SRPs intothe regular service, two batches of SRPs were absorbed and then the idea wasaborted. This Government may want to put the blame on the other government.When the Minister gets up to talk, we will then hear how much past regime talkhe would talk, and what the People's National Movement did. They will just getup and talk that and they would not tell us that in four years they have failed, but,again, the failure is compounded. I want to make this point clear because the hon.Minister of National Security—and I am certain I got it right this time—is amilitary person, a trained person, a person who should have a heart and be caringfor military and quasi military people, but he is not showing that at all where theseSRPs and other people in the services are concerned.

I want to say it again, to date, the soldiers have not gotten their money. A notewas passed to me today—I do not want to say from where because the Ministermight know—saying that he has not paid the people all their money. Since lastyear he promised to do that. When it is time to pay anybody, it seems that all hewants to hear is a big noise or a threat before he pays, because he is not paying.When you think of the SRPs, it is a sad thing to think that this hon. Minister whoshould be so caring is not even making an attempt. He sits next to the Minister ofFinance and he is not even whispering in his ears that these SRPs are people heshould take care of.

Do you know what he wants to do, Mr. President, he wants to bring thembefore a complaints authority. He wants anybody to say anything about them andhe would say, “Okay, discipline them!” But the money to take care of theirfamilies and homes, which he should be really caring about, he is not. That is theBill I would have liked to see this hon. Minister bring to this Senate.

The first person who was killed in the 1990 coup was an SRP by the name ofSolomon Mc Cloud, who was shot underneath the steps of the PoliceHeadquarters by the gate. He was the sentry at the police headquarters. He wasthe first officer at the old Police Headquarters to face the bullet; up to now no oneis sure whether his relatives were ever compensated. If they were compensated, it


was the compensation that the Cabinet said to give to him. Nobody knows what itwas. There are no further benefits; nobody cared whether he had children,whether they are getting anything more, nothing at all. Everywhere we see thatwhen anything happens to an SRP there are no benefits at all to be paid to them.There is a set who have performed up to 30 years full-time service, but receive nopension and gratuity upon retirement.

We have SRPs serving right now for over 15 years. Mr. President, do youknow that not a policewoman who is serving as a special reserve officer has beenpromoted over the last 15 years? What is this goodly Minister doing? He isbringing a Bill to punish them when people bring complaints against them. Again,this point must be made: he is a Minister who has military training. He is aminister who was one of the highest officers in our army and who, for the firsttime, has been put here. We were hoping that he would be caring and loving but,to us on this side, he shows absolutely no care at all for the people in hiscommand.

Fight to get better conditions; fight to get better positions. The way tomotivate these men, if you want to help solve crime, is to help these men to getbetter positions. When a man is outside working he could go into a criminalsituation with bandits more easily if he knows that if something happens to him,his family would be taken care of. He knows that if he goes into a bandit situationthough and something happens, this Minister is saying that if somebodycomplains, “Boy, this man push me and he should not have pushed me,” he or sheshould go to the Police Complaints Authority. That is where you want to bringthem, but you do not want to make sure that their families would get proper foodand benefits if something happens to them. Mr. President, I do not want to gounparliamentary, but talking here is hurting my heart. Standing here, watchinghim and talking is really a hurtful thing. He should be more caring!

The SRPs are the ones who started the Community Police section on motorbikes, riding from village to village throughout Trinidad and Tobago; they still do.They are the people you want to interface with the communities to tell the peopleto be nice and good. What is happening with their benefits? You want to bringthem in front of the Complaints Authority. Go ahead.

Some of the SRPs are not paid a full-time monthly salary. They are paid onfour-hour tour of duty when they work. When they are sick, there is no pay. Theregular police who are working in the community police department get sick leavebenefits and get paid. If they fall down on their motor bikes and are injured, they


786

get paid. Nothing happens for the SRP—no pay, no money for him. If he stayshome sick, no money.

2.45 p.m.Mr. President, do you know long ago the SRPs used to have some other tour of

duty? It is not like that again. The SRPs are really nearly permanent officers doingthe same work. Under the hon. Minister’s tenure something should happen sothat, at least, when he leaves, we would say yes, he was the person who had amilitary background, who understood, came and took care of the policemen. It isthe same men who are being called out in the line of duty. It is the same men—from your party—people say the time for war is here, and when the war starts it isthe hon. Minister who would have to call the men to stop the war and bring peace.How many lines of duties? How many times has the hon. Minister called the SRPsout to do work that would help solve problems and their benefits are not beingtaken care of?

Mr. President, the hon. Minister is now putting the regular police officersamong the SRPs although they laid the foundation in the community policing unit.They are getting benefits; the other set is not getting but he wants all of them toperform the same duty. The hon. Minister would have to keep scratching his headthroughout here—and I know that he is thinking about it. I am speaking to him sothat he would really get up and not feel that this contribution was just to goagainst him or a PNM political thing but will understand that it is made to him sothat he will reach out and do something to touch the minds and the lives of theseSRPs and their families. [Desk thumping]

The perception among senior officers of the regular police service—this iswhat they believe—is that give them a bunch of SRPs, let them carry out thepolicing function because SRPs do not give problems. They cannot give problemsbecause if they give problems they have nobody to complain to; there is noauthority that protects them, but the hon. Minister wants people to come andcomplain on them. They cannot complain when they have problems, you know,because they are just SRPs. They are just being stopped from being given moreduties; they are being ruled out and phased out. So they cannot complain whenthey have a problem but the hon. Minister wants people to complain on themwhen they give a problem. Unfair. Balance the thing. Be fair. Be good. Be nice.That is what we are asking this hon. Minister to do. It will go down on the recordsthat he is the hon. Minister who came with a military background and militarytraining with the best hope of understanding the needs of these SRPs.


As a matter of fact, some SRPs did tell me that when the hon. Minister becamethe Minister of National Security they felt that there was a chance and hope forthem, and today, they seem to be worse off, because instead of this hon. Ministermarching forward, he is only marking time on the SRP issue. That is all he isdoing—marking time. They feel that they are being victimized.

Senior regular police officers get problems in working, as they do all the time.Mr. President, do you know the SRPs are the drivers for senior officers in thepolice service? The hon. Minister may even be driven by an SRP. I guess when hegets up you may hear that his driver is an SRP, and if the car crashes his securityand everybody else have some compensation to get except his SRP driver. The SRPdriver just has to go home and they might send him a card and say, “get wellquick” with no compensation to his family. It is a shameful situation.

Mr. President: Hon. Senator, I had told you on a previous occasion that youought not to so personalize your contribution. I think I have given you enoughlatitude in that direction.

Sen. M. Shabazz: Thank you, Mr. President. All I am asking, Sir, is that theplaying field be levelled. There may be a number of SRPs working in thoseministries. If you walk you would see them keeping guard duties in the ministries.Mr. President, could you please ask these hon. Ministers to be a little morecompassionate towards the special reserve police officers of the police service inTrinidad and Tobago?

They are escorts for high-ranking members of Government. A number ofpatrol cars are being driven by the SRPs, and they are being paid four hours fortheir tour of duty. If they perform more than 55 tours of four hours each, they areonly paid for 55 tours, they are not paid for the 20 tours of four hours. If they doperform on a monthly basis they will receive more money. I am saying, Sir, andthe point that I want to keep making is that we must take care. It is so unfair to themembers of the special reserve police section that they are not being promoted;they are not being given better conditions; they are not being given benefits; theyhave nobody to complain to and the hon. Minister is asking us to pass a Bill hereso that people could complain on them. I think that is very, very unfair.

I think that if it is just out of a moral position; a position of ethics that weshould not even pass this Bill. I wish, after my contribution, the hon. Minister getsup, pull back the Bill, go and work and give these people what is due to them. Putthe young members in the regular service and make sure that they are being given


788

their benefits and then bring this Bill back to this honourable Senate. If he doesthat, I would be very happy to have him pass this Bill. I think the intent of theBill, really, is a good one.

Sir, do you know the story about the road to hell? It was paved with goodintentions, but this one is only taking the SRPs down into the hell fire. It is notdoing anything to help them, and we have asked him here, time and time again, todo something to help the SRPs. I asked the hon. Minister a question since July 05,1999—and we were asking long before that, and all you are hearing from thishon. Minister—maybe he needs help from public administration, and somebodyshould help him to reach out to the SRPs.

Mr. President—this is just for the record—do you know this morning I pickedup the People’s National Movement Charter from since 1956 and I readsomething and made a note of it. They were told that in 1950, they voted for aGovernment, which was then a labour Government. And I quote:

“Instead, you allowed yourself to be decided by leaders or to be directedby leaders of labour who have now become the leaders against labour.”

Do you know from 1956 to now that seems to apply again. So many labour peoplethere and you could see things coming up—it might be by chance and I hope I amnot getting personal—that certain unions are asked for certain conditions, butwhat about these people who are not unionized? Can these same labour peoplewho are fighting for benefits and conditions for those around them—although itmay seem as though they are very innocent about it—why are they not puttingtheir heads together saying, this is an ideal situation to deal with the SRPs? Why?They keep coming here and boasting about how they have paid this one and theyhave settled all disputes; and they have settled all this—and it is not true, Sir.They have not settled the army fully as yet. I can stand here and say with suretythat the army is still to be paid their money. They still owe them. [Interruption]

Sen. Brig. Theodore: Mr. President, just on a point of correction, the hon. Senatorhas been repeating this phrase for some time. I have checked and my information is thatall the army personnel who were entitled to any payment based on backpay, incrementsor whatsoever have been paid. The hon. Senator said almost, but my PermanentSecretary has informed me and the Chief of Defence Staff that the only people who,from December last year when the question was raised, may not have gotten theircheque would have been people who were either on leave or away from the barracks.The money has been provided and I wish to inform the hon. Senator that the money hasbeen paid. Whoever is giving him notes and informing him that this has not been done,


tell them go to their Chief of Defence Staff and collect their cheque, the money is there.[Desk thumping]

Sen. M. Shabazz: Mr. President, he says “according to his information”. Ihope his is correct and mine is wrong, but I think mine is correct. According tomy information, there are people who are still to be paid in the army. We will hearabout it because it will continue and we will know for sure within this week,whether that is so.

I was making the point about these labour people inside there; they must reachout; they must make sure that the money is paid; they must fight to ensure afterthey are saying how much good they have done, and how they have dealt with allthe other payments, deal with the SRPs.

2.55 p.m.Really and truly, Mr. President, all I want to say is this. I am not saying this to

get anybody on that side vexed or annoyed, you know, even though it sometimestakes less than that to get them annoyed. My intent, Sir, is not to get themannoyed. My intent is to bring the reality of the situation to them because thereare a number of SRPs around who believe that their condition should and must bebetter. That is my main reason for dealing with it from that angle. Promote thepeople, regularize them in the proper way, make sure that there are benefits andsuch things brought forward to them, then we can come back here and talk abouthaving them taken to the Police Complaints Authority.

In ending, Mr. President, I again call on this hon. Minister, the first Ministerof National Security who, and that is historical, came from the services, to takecare of the men around him far better than he is doing. Rather than ensure thatcomplaints are brought against them, protect them in such a way that they willcontinue to go out there and be inspired to do their duty in a much better way thanit is being done. Give them the encouragement. It is in your hands, Mr. Ministerof National Security. Mr. President, I ask him, in a time when we are seeing somuch crime, when we are seeing so many things happening, so many things goingwrong, the types of crimes we are seeing in the country and the way that thiscountry is falling apart, to reach out and try to do something for them.

There was an SRP who committed a suicide/murder—we remember that—whowas one of the hard-working SRPs who was doing his job. It ended in a tragic waybut we know the ability SRPs have in this country and the kind of work that theycan do. One of the officers I respect is Mr. Cordner, who has since left the service,but was an SRP who went into the regular service and proved to be a very good


790

police officer. He left maybe as a sergeant or an inspector. Luckily for him whenhe was injured he was a member of the regular police. I do not remember whetherin that crash in Mayaro there was an SRP involved.

The point is, though, we on this side believe that that is what must be done.We could get up and hear them talk about what the PNM did not do. I hope that theMinister’s contribution would be one apologizing for what he has not yet done,one saying that, “I have taken what you have said and I intend to do so, so, sonow”. I wish I would hear him talking in that light and in that spirit and not justmaking the SRP feel, “PNM did not do it, NAR did not do it, so if we ain’t do it, donot come and tell we nothing”.

This is people’s lives we are playing with and it is up to you. It is in yourhands, now, Sir. When it comes back to our hands we will handle it in a betterway and in a serious way. [Interruption] With the little time that you still have,Sir, try to reach out to them. Because of the respect that I have for you I wouldlike to know that, being the kind-hearted person I have always seen or thoughtyou to be, you have done something to make these SRPs who guard you in theParliament and others really feel proud and happy that you have touched their andtheir families’ lives in a significant way. Thank you, Mr. President. [Deskthumping]

Sen. Prof. John Spence: Mr. President, it seems to me that the Bill isstraightforward and I have nothing to criticize in the provisions that are beingmade, save that we are really, if you like, correcting some errors or omissions thatwere made earlier on. Since the hon. Minister, in making his presentation, choseto give a little background to the Police Complaints Authority, I would like to askfor my own information and, perhaps, others as well, about procedures to do, notwith specific officers but, with the force as a whole. I want to give two specificexamples to illustrate what I mean by this and get guidance as to what action onemight take.

The first point I am going to make is with respect to a frequent breaking of thelaw in Trinidad and Tobago with respect to the crossing of red traffic lights. Now,this undoubtedly poses a danger to many citizens, certainly those who drive cars,and I count myself among those persons who are so endangered. It seems to methat it would not be difficult to clamp down on this practice by placing somepolice officers at appropriate lights, because the practice is so frequent now thatany red traffic light would do for apprehending persons who flout the law in thisway.


So the question I would ask is, is it feasible within the provisions of this Act?If not, perhaps we should be looking at the Act again to make some amendmentsenabling one to make a general complaint, not about a specific action of a specificpolice officer, but an act of omission when a glaring flouting of the law has takenplace and no action is taken. That is one example that I would like to give.

The other example is more opportune in the sense that it is in the news at themoment, and that is the paving of the savannah. Now, I have here the original Actthat governs the Queen’s Park Savannah and the regulations that accompany thatAct. Amongst the regulations is one that says that one may not:

“Dig any earth, cut any grass, or remove any turf, manure or grass withoutpermission from the Superintendent of Public Gardens, Grounds and Pastures.”

Now, when a specific office like that is named in the law, Mr. President, not eventhe Prime Minister has the authority to give permission. Permission could only begiven by the officer named.

I used to be in charge of plant quarantine services in Trinidad and Tobagoand, in the plant quarantine services, as the law then applied, there were certainofficers named who could give permission for the importation of plants. Not eventhe Director of Agriculture, as he was then or as it is now the Chief TechnicalOfficer, could instruct that officer to give permission, if the officer decided thatpermission was not to be given.

I remember when I first joined the Ministry there was quite a bit of talk aboutimportation of gamecocks from Venezuela because one Minister of government wasparticularly active in the area of gamecock fighting. Even he could not get permissionbecause the officer on duty, in spite of any representations that may have been made bythe other Minister, the Minister of Agriculture at that time, could not get permission toimport them. So he had to import them illegally and, of course, even then we had thesituation where the authorities looked the other way.

I would like to know, is it possible for me to make a general complaint withrespect to the police service in regard to the paving of the savannah? Here is anillegal action taking place, it is quite public in the sense that it is very wellpublicized and even the persons who are carrying out the act admit that they havenot got permission to do what they are doing. Therefore, I would be very gratefulif the hon. Minister could inform me whether, within the terms of the PoliceComplaints Authority, I may go to that authority and complain that no action hasbeen taken against the National Carnival Commission and those other personswho have committed this illegal act. Thank you very much. [Desk thumping]


792

Sen. Nafeesa Mohammed: Mr. President, I do apologize as, when I came in,my colleague was on his feet speaking. I have listened to the very passionate pleawith respect to our particular concerns with regard to this Bill before us and that isas it relates to the tenure and the terms and conditions of work for the SRPs and,indeed, the municipal police. I heard my colleague making mention of the factthat, to use his words, “The hon. Minister does not care”. I wish to just qualifythat by saying that it is not that this Minister does not care, because deep down Ithink he cares, but it is his colleagues with whom he is associated who seem notto care about these people. [Desk thumping]

I make specific reference, Mr. President, to this Government’s position as itrelates to the plight of the SRPs and it relates, as well, to their position when theywere on this side of the Chamber a couple years ago. That was also a time whenmy good friend, the hon. Leader of Government Business, the Minister of PublicAdministration, used to stand right where I am standing now. A bit later in mycontribution I would make some references to his comments when the PoliceComplaints Authority Act was being debated in this Chamber. You would see thehypocrisy of this Government [Desk thumping] as they seek to conduct thebusiness of government in this country.

Mr. President, we know that the Bill before us is seeking to extend thejurisdiction of the Police Complaints Authority Act to cover SRPs and municipalpolice. However, as my colleague pointed out, whilst the intent and purpose of thelegislation seem to be very good—because we recognize that there is a need tocater or cover for them with respect to the Police Complaints Authority—we alsorecognize that there exists a very big problem that needs to be addressed. Onewould have thought that after all the “ramajaying” the UNC has done in the pastthat at this point, in bringing legislation like this, government would have seen itfit to take these concerns on board and certainly to attempt to legislate for them.This is our problem and our concern with this Bill.

I think it is important for us to have a little more information, in terms of thebackground that would have led up to this Bill and, indeed, to go back to thesetting up of the Police Complaints Authority. As the hon. Minister pointed out,the authority was established by Act No. 17 of 1993. The Act was, in fact,proclaimed, I think it was, in October of 1995 and, from the reports that I haveseen, I think the actual operations of the authority would have commenced aroundMay of 1996.

Now, we need to remember the main purpose of the Police ComplaintsAuthority. I think it was the former Sen. Surendranath Capildeo who made certain


statements when that Police Complaints Authority was being set up in 1993. Inthe debate he said that:

“…the institution of the Police Service has become one of fear, mistrust,suspicion and demoralization.”

He also said that:

“History will recall that we in this country…have permitted thedestruction of our Police Service by successive administration of bungling,incompetent, inept and in some cases, dangerous, downright politicalinterference by blinkered myopic, selfish administrators.”

How I wish Suren Capildeo was standing on this side of the Chamber and lookingat his colleagues on that side today to see the hypocrisy with them, Mr. President.You see, what is very clear to us is the fact that we recognize there are deep-rooted problems affecting the police service. There are problems with which pastadministrations had been trying to grapple. We have found that this UNCadministration, which my colleague, the hon. Sen. Wade Mark referred to lastweek as the “UNC Government of National Unity”—we no longer hear talk aboutcoalition—has just politicized the whole thing.

3.10 p.m.They came into Government on a platform dealing with crime and talking

about what steps they would take to tackle the problem of crime in our countryand, under their watch, we have seen an escalation in the crime situation in ourcountry.

The reality is that the problems that have been complained about over theyears continue to exist and persist, and there is no real attempt by thisGovernment to tackle these problems in a more decisive and holistic manner.Instead, it is a case of adhocracy that is being practised at all levels with this UNCadministration in Government because when something arises, it is just likeputting a plaster on a sore. They are not really trying to get to the root of theproblem to deal with things in a manner as though they have some real plan, orprogramme, or some real policy to take this country forward, especially as itrelates to crime in the country and, indeed, as it relates to the problems that wehave been hearing about in the police service.

We know that in the police service there are very many honest and hard-working officers who are employed in our country. We recognize that. But, as ineverything else, if you have a few rotten apples you will have some problems, but

Police Complaints Authority (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, February 22, 2000[SEN. MOHAMMED]

794

we have to examine and ask ourselves: What are the causes of some of theseproblems?

So that when in 1993, the Police Complaints Authority Act was being debatedhere, the impetus for that piece of legislation was based on the fact that aroundthat time, there were numerous complaints coming from the public in terms of thepolice service and so forth. The setting up of the authority was an attempt to setup an independent body of, if I may say so, I think I can use the word “civilians”,that would be free from political interference and what have you, that would beable to receive complaints and, certainly, investigate and process the complaints.Hand-in-hand with the Police Complaints Authority that was being established, itwas envisaged that this authority would liaise closely with what is known as theComplaints Division, which is a special division that exists within the policeservice of Trinidad and Tobago. Those two arms would work together in an effortto investigate complaints and take action so that at the end of the day, we wouldhave a greater measure of confidence on the part of the public in terms of ourpolice service, because the operation of an efficient police service is premised onsupport from the public and that level of confidence that would come from thepublic. Hence the reason for the setting up of the Police Complaints Authority.

It is not just in Trinidad and Tobago that there is such a body existing, it isthroughout the world. Many other countries have, in fact, established institutionslike that because, from time to time, you read of reports and see it on the news.But problems have been known to exist over time, because, I suppose, of thenature of the work that is involved, and whatever the circumstances are, therehave been many situations where members of the public have had genuineconcerns and complaints. Hence the reason for this authority to deal with thesecomplaints in an independent and impartial manner.

We have to ask the question which is: Since the setting up of the PoliceComplaints Authority—in 1993 the legislation was passed but it actually openedin 1996—we have to examine the situation now and ask whether it is, in fact,fulfilling its mandate in an efficient way. I know the hon. Minister took time offto give us some statistics in terms of the number of complaints that have beenreceived; how many have been dealt with; how many were determined; whatnumber of reviews, if any, were had; et cetera.

I must confess that I have not had the privilege of seeing the more recentreports of the Police Complaints Authority because, as I look at the Act, I see it isa requirement that an annual report must, in fact, be prepared and laid in


Parliament and although the report that I have in my possession may be a coupleyears old, it still has a lot of relevance because I am sure that many of the mattersmentioned in this report are still very much existing.

I refer to The 1996/1997 First Annual Report of the Police ComplaintsAuthority. I am hoping that since then, some of these concerns would have beenaddressed. From what I gather, there are real problems that continue to exist andneed to be attended to in terms of the operations of this Police ComplaintsAuthority. In this report, for example, on page 6, one of the main concerns hasbeen the level of staffing as it relates to the authority. Now, initially, there werereal problems and I gather that steps had been taken and they were able,eventually, I think around 1997 or thereabouts, to get some more staff by the endof the second year of the operations of the authority.

On page 7 of the report that I have in my possession, I think the biggerproblem lies in the Complaints Division where there is an acute shortage of staffand this, of course, would affect the manner in which complaints are received and,in fact, investigated. I think we need to know a bit more about the ComplaintsDivision. The shortage of staff has been a problem, especially in terms of theavailable staff and their investigative duties. They have been lagging behind and itis a fact that there is a shortage of investigators in that particular division.

As I said, if it is that things have changed from the time of this report to now,we will be happy to know that the situation has improved, but my gleaning of thematter suggests that is not necessarily so.

On page 12 of the report, of course, funding is a problem. This authority,when it was being set up, was intended to be an independent body, but I believethat all matters pertaining to the financing of the authority are, in fact, determinedby the Ministry of National Security. Of course, this will have its own constraintsand I gather that one of the amendments here in this Bill today is an attempt totackle some of the concerns that have been expressed with respect to the fundingarrangements of the authority.

In this report, there is an analysis, at page 14, of the complaints that have beenreceived and it is very interesting to note the types of complaints. In this particularyear, I think it was 1,405 complaints and of these complaints, the largest numberswere in respect of harassment, battery and complaints that officers had beenimpolite. At page 17, it also points out, at that time:

“The highest number of complaints was made against officers from theBesson Street Police Station…and the Chaguanas Police Station…”


796

Mr. President, at page 24, the report went on to deal with some areas ofcomplaint and this is where, in this report, specific reference had been made to theneed to include special reserve and municipal police officers to bring them withinthe definition of police officers, so that at the end of the day, the PoliceComplaints Authority would have some jurisdiction over these persons.

What is very interesting is in relation to the operations of the ComplaintsDivision. In Appendix IV of this report, there is a report submitted by the seniorsuperintendent of the Complaints Division and it says:

“It should be noted that given the advent of the Police Complaints Authority(PCA) it is envisaged that the work load of the C.D. is likely to increase, and assuch proactive measures should be put in place to meet this anticipatedincrease. Support staff, additional equipment (computer, printer, vehicles) areurgently required if this C.D. is to meet its mandate.”

In this appendix, too, there is a very interesting background that led to the creationof the Complaints Division. Reference is made here to the Service Inspection andComplaints Unit which existed within the police service and its predecessor, theInternal Investigations Unit. The Internal Investigations Unit was established in1981 within the administrative branch of the service and I think it was in 1992 orthereabouts, the scope of the unit was enlarged and a new mandate given, so youhad the Service Inspection and Complaints Unit. So that when, in 1993, thisPolice Complaints Authority was being set up, it was envisaged that the authoritywould work hand-in-hand with this unit, which is now called the ComplaintsDivision.

As I pointed out, Mr. President, the fact of the matter is there are realproblems that affect this particular division, and I trust that the hon. Minister ofPublic Administration and, indeed, the Minister of National Security, would betaking note of these problems in terms of the level of staffing. In this report, ittalks about the number of additional officers required to make this division moreefficient, especially where it now has an increased workload because this divisiondeals not just with complaints coming from the Police Complaints Authority; italso deals with matters that involve, I think the Police Service Commission, anddisciplinary procedures. They have a lot of work to deal with and they aresuffering from lack of some basic amenities. They need more staff and equipment,Mr. President.

As my colleague had pointed out earlier in this debate, the real problem hasbeen in terms of the fact that special reserve and municipal police officers do not


fall within the definition as is provided, so that the Police Complaints Authority—if there are complaints against special reserve police and municipal police—hasno real jurisdiction over them. Hence the need for this amendment.

I must refer to Sen. Wade Mark's contribution in 1993 when the PoliceComplaints Authority was, in fact, being set up. If I may be permitted, Mr.President, just a very, very brief quote from the contribution of the hon. Senator.It was around this time, in February of 1993. I just enjoy reading his pastcontributions—

Sen. Mark: I telling you. You love to read me.

Sen. N. Mohammed:—because it reeks of political hypocrisy and as he talksabout political gimmickry and as the Police Complaints Authority Act was thenbeing debated, he said we should not be wasting time debating that, we should bedebating the Pegasus scandal. Well, we today should be talking about the airportsscandal, where the costs have now gone up again. They have escalated the costagain. They are going to build a whole new floor, so you can imagine how manymore millions are going to be thrown away just before the election. Such politicalgimmickry and hypocrisy! It is only a matter of time.

3.25 p.m.In Sen. Wade Mark’s contribution he talked about the plight of the special

reserve police (SRP), just as my colleague Sen. Shabazz did a while ago, and hewent to town—[Interruption] just as long, even longer perhaps—in terms of theplight of these SRPs. He referred to what he called the “inertia” of the thengovernment in acting on what is known as the O’Dowd Report. He talked aboutour failure to deal with the plight of these SRPs. He, in his contribution, called forthe regularization of the status of the SRPs. It is rather unfortunate that the hon.Minister of Public Administration who, today, sits in Government and is in chargeof public administration and who is a labour leader himself, would sit here andlisten to the hon. Minister of National Security as though he has lost his tongue.He has not done—[Interruption] I know he is now being encouraged to speak. Iknow he is going to stand here, just as he did last week, and go to town about howthe PNM did nothing for 34 years, and they did not do this and they did not dothat, and misleading and mamaguying the population, when in truth and in fact heas a labour leader—as indeed many others—sits as though they have sold out; inthe sense that in that struggle to improve the terms and conditions of workers, onehas to wonder about where that struggle is at present.

Sen. Mark: Continuing.


798

Sen. N. Mohammed: This situation with the SRPs—this was a beautiful, agolden opportunity to take on board the plight of the SRPs. [Desk thumping]

In Sen. Mark’s contribution, he said:

“The O’Dowd Report recommended that the Government move swiftly toregularize the status of these SRPs, who seem to be permanently temporary in theService, and they need to give them full-time status, with all the attendant benefitsthat the officers receive, because they do the same work, yet they do not get thesame pay or enjoy the kind of benefits the other officers are entitled to.”

Senator Mark has a golden opportunity to fix it, to put this one right beforejudgment day is here. It is just a matter of time, Mr. President. The Governmentwill hold this Bill and go to the public and say: “You see what we are doing forcrime, how we are tackling the crime problem.” When in truth and in fact, itreally is just political gimmickry.

I know the hon. Minister of National Security does not have to go to thatlevel, but it is those around him who seem to be missing the boat, missing thepoint and totally oblivious to the real problems and trying to get at the core of theproblems in an effort to deal with the problems that are existing.

Mr. President, I think I ought to quote a bit from this report known as theO’Dowd Report which Sen. Mark, in 1993 said the then government was hiding. Igot this report in the library here in Parliament; it is a public document. It hasbeen made available for all to see. It is a very interesting report. At page 17, itactually starts off dealing with the special reserve police. This report was preparedin May 1991. It is a review of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service. I think it isthe sixth report that has been done in the history of our country in terms of theoperations of our police service in Trinidad and Tobago.

At page 17, paragraph 3.19 reference is made to a previous report knownas the Bruce Report which says:

“…addressed a number of anomalies concerning the terms and conditions ofservice for the SRP in comparison with regular officers. The relevant extract isreproduced at Appendix 3(m).”

It goes on into the background of the SRP. I quote:“3.19.2 The SRP are established under the Special Reserve Act Chapter

15.03. Any regular police officer within the First Division may usethe SRP:


(i) in cases of external aggression or internal disturbances,actual or threatened;

(ii) when additional police are required for the preservation oforder, the protection of persons or property or for any otherduty performed by members of the police service;

(iii) on full-time, part-time or temporary service.3.19.3 In summary Bruce highlighted the following: (i) the original concept of the SRP was to provide a reserve

force of citizens who are otherwise employed tosupplement the service in times of need;

(ii) SRP has been employed on a whole time temporary basissince 1969 and the numbers had gradually increased withpersonnel employed as policemen, drivers and artisans;

(iii) SRP are designated as police officers to bring them withinthe disciplinary code. Full-time SRP receive the same ratesof pay as regular officers. However, those employed full-time do not enjoy the same conditions of service asregulars, e.g. no entitlement to overtime payments,pensions, gratuity, housing allowance, medical or dentalbenefits, etc.;

(iv) SRP may have their services terminated at any time by theCommissioner of Police;

(v) no provision for staff association representation as full-timeworkers.

3.19.4 Bruce recommended: (i) Whole-time SRP should pay a pension contribution and

receive benefits in line with regular officers (asrecommended by a Pensions Review Committee);

(ii) The practice of employing SRP on a temporary whole-timebasis should be stopped. Those at present so employedshould either be absorbed into the regular police service oremployed where their functions do not require the trainingor authority of the police;

(iii) Urgent steps should be taken to revitalise the part-time SRPas a supplement to the regular police service.”


800

Mr. President, the report goes on. The fact of the matter is just as Sen. Mark didwhen he was on this side some years ago, so too we are reminding them, we areurging them, we are asking them to, please, implement the recommendations thathave been made in this report.

Mr. President, this brings me to a very, how should I put it, sad, unfortunateand—if I may describe it too as—even dangerous development in our country. Iam referring to an incident that recently took place in our country. I am makingreference to this incident because it has direct bearing in terms of the debate thatis taking place. In fact, I am on my feet now and making a formal complaint to thehon. Minister of National Security, because under this Bill, it is in fact—thePolice Complaints Authority—an institution that has been set up wherecomplaints can be made. One of the amendments in this Bill today is actuallyseeking to give some discretion to the authority in dealing with the complaintsand the manner in which the complaint is coming in.

The complaint I wish to make, Mr. President, is the fact that to this date, wehave not heard anything substantive about the investigations that have been goingon into the recent political assassination that took place in our country when Mr.Sumairsingh was murdered just before the new year started.

Only last week, in the Express of Tuesday, February 15, at page 3, there wasan article, the headline of which says:

“No arrest yet in Sumairsingh killingPregnant widow moves outJust two weeks before his wife Sandra Sumairsingh is due to give birth, noarrests have yet been made in the shooting death of Mayaro-Rio ClaroRegional Corporation chairman…

In the 46 days since the killing seven members of the Jamaat alMuslimeen have been questioned by investigators and more than 90 peopleinterviewed. But police have not charged anyone.”

Mr. President, we know the police have their work to do but what we are asking isfor some update on the status of this very dangerous development in the history ofour country and for the Minister of National Security to certainly give us someinformation, because it will be a sad day in our country if this is yet anothercover-up that is taking place. We do not want to feel that there is cover-up. This isone of the main impetus for the Police Complaints Authority. One wantsindependent, impartial investigations and one does not want to know that it is acase of any cover-up taking place.


I am calling on the hon. Minister of National Security to please clear the air.We know that several people have been quizzed and questioned, Ministers’ nameshave been called too, and people detained, but released the day after. We want toknow, the country wants to know what is happening. Is the Government going toleave it in limbo because it is moving into an election and it wants to cover-up? Isthere any political interference? We hope not, Mr. President. [Desk thumping]We sincerely hope not. That is why I empathize with the hon. Minister ofNational Security because I know, as an individual deep down, as a professionalperson in this country, he would not stand by or would not want to see this kind ofsituation existing.

3.35 p.m.Certainly, Mr. President, people must have the courage and fortitude to be

able to stand and do what is right and stop covering up and fooling people,because “Judgment Day” is not too far from now.

Sen. Shabazz: The writing is on the wall.Sen. N. Mohammed: When we look at clause 4 of the Bill that is before us

we would see that the Police Complaints Authority Act is being amended to insertafter section 17 a new section that deals with the auditing of accounts. I recallreading in one of the reports, I think it was The 1996/1997 First Annual Report ofthe Police Complaints Authority that this was one of the problems that had, infact, been pointed out in terms of the operations of the authority and the need forthere to be proper accounting procedures set up. This amendment seems to be anattempt to do so.

When I look in greater detail at the report and the recommendations that havebeen made, I believe that something is missing with this amendment in terms ofthe new section 17B. Section 17B states:

“17B. (1) The Authority shall, within three months of the end of eachfinancial year submit to the Minister…

(a) an annual report dealing with the activities of the Authorityduring the financial year;

(b) a copy of the audited statement of accounts and suchinformation relating to the operations of the Authority as theMinister may require.

Then section 17B.(2) talks about the annual report and audited statement again. Ibelieve that we need to tighten this clause up a bit and we should actually


802

stipulate or spell out by whom the accounts should be audited. One would expectthat in a situation like that it would, in fact, be the Auditor General that would bethe agency responsible for the auditing of these accounts. I feel that is a matter wecould look at and seek to tighten up a bit.

Mr. President, when I referred to the O'Dowd Report, I think that for therecord I should make mention of the fact that there were several other reports thathad been done on the police service in our country over the years. For the record,at page one in the introduction of this 1991 O'Dowd Report it refers to the pastreviews. It said:

“1.1 Over the past thirty-three years there have been five reviews of variousaspects of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS);

Lee Committee [1]

Set up in November 1958 to examine the whole of the public service.

Darby Commission [2]

Appointed in August 1964 to enquire into the organisation, administration anddiscipline of the police and procedures on the investigation of crime and alliedmatters.

Carr Committee [3]

Established by the government in November 1971 to make recommendationsto ensure the achievement of the efficient operation and maintenance of theesprit de corps of the police service.

Bruce Committee [4]

Commissioned by the Cabinet in November 1978 to make recommendationson the restructuring of the police service.

The Police Executive Research Forum Study [5]

Sponsored by the United States Department of State.”

This would have been around 1990 and then, of course, there was this O'DowdReport which was prepared in May of 1991.

What this tells us is that there have been so many studies and we can go intothese documents and we would be able to get a realistic picture of some of theproblems that are affecting our police service and, yes, there arerecommendations. The police service is almost like a battered institution in our


country. Really and truly what we need is to make that commitment to get in andlook at the real problems existing inside and let us see how we can deal withthem, if we want to bring about meaningful change in our country, society and,indeed, if we want to deal with the crime situation in an effective manner.

We recognize that there are many hardworking and honest officers. On apersonal note, I can testify to the fact that in my little experiences I have had inthe past that the kind of support and response from the police has really beenphenomenal. But the reality is that there are real problems in the system that needto be addressed and we need to get to the root of them.

All we are yearning for, and I am sure that I speak on behalf of thousands ofpeople in this country, we want to know that we have a functioning, efficient andcompetent police service in our country, [Desk thumping] but we have to get tothe root of the problems in a more holistic way, not in this kind of ad hoc or“vaps” way. This is a “vaps” Government; they only do things by “vaps” just likepaving the savannah, no plan or iota of thought as to the drainage situation oranything like that. They got a “vaps” and some people who seem to have morepowers than even ministers, have done things that history will have well-documented; so for generations to come we would see what damage this UNCadministration has done to our country.

Mr. President, if anything, this UNC administration has created more suspicionand lack of confidence in our police service by their political interference andtheir inability to grapple with crime in the country in a more holistic and decisivemanner. They are just about political expediency and doing things for publicrelations only, not about good governance. I am once more calling on the hon.Minister of National Security to please give this country an update on the status ofthe investigations into the political assassination of Mr. Sumairsingh.

Sen. Tota-Maharaj: How do you know that it was political?

Sen. N. Mohammed: I could go on a bit more on this issue, but there hasbeen so much tension in our society. I am hoping that the hon. Minister ofNational Security who is a man I know is willing, at times, to listen and to try hisbest, but I gather that he is circumscribed in his own way.

Before I take my seat, I want to make one more request of the hon. Minister ofNational Security. A couple years ago he stood in the Parliament and at that timewe were talking about the construction of a police post in the Barataria/San Juanarea. Today, there is, in fact, a police station that has been built, the work wasstarted under the People's National Movement. I know that people in the


804

community of Barataria/San Juan are very grateful, indeed, for the construction ofthat police station in the area, but it is regrettable that at times when you needquick and decisive action from the police they are unable to discharge their dutiesproperly because of a basic lack of equipment and facilities.

I am making mention of this because just about a week ago I had theunfortunate experience to have to call in the police in a situation that, at the time,seemed very urgent, where a gentleman seemed to have been on a rampagedemolishing someone’s home. After putting through a call to the police at thebrand new Barataria Police Station asking for help, I was informed that whilethere are officers there they have no vehicles to respond to the call. They had tomake arrangements to get officers to come from quite St. Clair, by which time,you can imagine the amount of destruction that had taken place. In fact, livescould have been lost in that kind of scenario.

Hon. Minister, I am asking you—I know that you have been trying; someattempts are being made, but although vehicles have been obtained in that station,through the kind cooperation of some corporate citizens from the area, thevehicles that were donated have been parked up, they are not working, they are inneed of repairs. We need some proper working vehicles. We do not needCherokee jeeps, hon. Minister. In Barataria/San Juan we need some vehicles thatwould work properly and would serve the community, so that we can have morepatrols and a safer environment in the area.

Mr. President, I thank you sincerely for the opportunity to speak.

The Minister of Public Administration (Sen. The Hon. Wade Mark): Mr.President, I wish to join this debate and give support to the hon. Minister ofNational Security on this very important Bill that is before us to amend the PoliceComplaints Authority Act of 1993 and to extend the jurisdiction of the PoliceComplaints Authority by conferring on the Authority the power to deal withcomplaints made against members of the special reserve police and the municipalpolice, in particular, because as was pointed out, these two categories were notcaptured when this Bill was first passed in Parliament in 1993. In addition to thisparticular measure, the Bill seeks to put in place measures to facilitate theeffective and efficient functioning of the Police Complaints Authority.

Mr. President, the Police Complaints Authority receives complaints on theconduct of any police officer. It also monitors the investigation of a complaint bythe Police Complaints Division so as to ensure that the investigation is conducted


impartially. It reports to the Minister from time to time or at his request and, ofcourse, it reviews reports from the division in accordance with Part 4 of the Act.

The Authority was established, as you recall, in response to the urgent needfor appropriate machinery set up to address numerous complaints that werecoming in from the public about the conduct of police officers in the exercise oftheir duties and responsibilities. It was in 1993, as Sen. Mohammed recalled, thethen Minister of National Security introduced this measure in support of thisproposal to establish the Police Complaints Authority. At that time, I recall himexpressing the view that citizens were justified in being aggrieved by anysituation wherein complaints against the police were being investigated,singularly and solely, by the policemen themselves and where the conclusions andrecommendations being made, fell exclusively within the discretion of the policeservice.

It was against this background that the Minister of National Security thenproposed and the Cabinet agreed that appropriate legislation be enacted inTrinidad and Tobago for the establishment of an independent, impartial bodyvested with the authority to address complaints made by members of the publicagainst police officers. It was only on May 1, 1996, May Day, that the office ofthe Authority was opened to the public and started to receive complaints from thegeneral public. At that time, the operations of the office were carried out by theChairman, as you recall, with the assistance of two officers temporarily assignedfrom the Minister of National Security.

Well, Mr. President, things have changed since, and there is now, for instance,a more permanent establishment core available to the Police ComplaintsAuthority. The Police Complaints Authority carries out its mandate by receiving,processing and monitoring the investigation of complaints. They also correspondwith the complainants. They deal with the training of staff to carry out theAuthority’s functions and they review and resolve the complaints from the public.

These activities are currently being carried out within the constraints of theAct which allowed the Authority to monitor the initial complaints followinginvestigation and report by the Police Complaints Division and to deal directlywith applications from those citizens who request reviews. Of course, the ultimateaim and goal of the complaints authorities is the question of performance and theenhancement of the image of the police service and to increase the publicconfidence in members of the police service.

Police Complaints Authority (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, February 22, 2000[HON. W. MARK]

806

3.50 p.m.I feel confident when I say that the public image of the police service and the

public service in general has improved under the present administration. Not tothe extent that we would like but I think it is now public knowledge that the policeservice, in spite of all its limitations and constraints, is trying extremely hard tobuild, project and promote a very positive image in terms of their establishment.

Whilst, for instance, this Government of the United National Congress hasbeen criticized for bringing a lot of legislation in this Parliament, I think that anumber of the pieces of legislation that we have brought here have been broughtto this honourable House given the need for those Bills and the alertness,responsiveness and shortfall that we have discovered and we have sought to fill interms of bringing these pieces of legislation to Parliament.

It is against the background of the report that Sen. Mohammed quoted from,the 1996/1997 report, that a number of these recommendations and amendmentscontained in the Bill before this honourable Senate have, in fact, developed. Thereport of 1996/1997 recommended that the definition of “police officer” bewidened to include, not only special reserve police but also municipal policeofficers, and it is this recommendation that came out of the 1996/1997 report thatis contained in clause 3 of this Bill that is now before this honourable Senate.

There is also an amendment which we have circulated to Members of thishonourable Senate which seeks to capture, that is on page 2 of the amendments—We have captured the members of the municipal police force which was not reallycontained in the original Bill but which is part of the whole process that we aredealing with. So the amendments that we have circulated to hon. Senators seek toreflect the intent of the Bill by incorporating the municipal police force inaccordance with the regulations that have been identified in this particular sectionof the amendment.

Another recommendation that came out of this 1996/1997 report was thewhole question of the authority keeping proper accounts and records of thetransactions and affairs of the authority, and the authority should do all things thatare necessary to ensure that all payments of moneys or payments out of themoneys of the authority are made and properly authorized and that adequatecontrol is maintained over the assets of this particular body.

Therefore, it is against this background that the Bill is seeking as well, toensure that the financial statements and accounts are submitted to the hon.


Minister. In addition, the accounts of the authority would be audited by theAuditor General on an annual basis and those accounts would now be brought tothe Parliament through the Minister of National Security as identified, I think, inclause 4(2). In fact, clause 4(2) of the amendment says:

“The Minister shall cause a copy of the annual report and auditedstatement to be laid in Parliament and if Parliament is not then in session,within twenty-eight days of the commencement of its next session.”

Mr. President, it is against the background of recommendations coming out of the1996/1997 report that we are seeking to address a lacuna that the PoliceComplaints Authority recognized and this is why we are addressing this particularmatter here today.

As I said, this Police Complaints Authority is carrying out a very importantrole and responsibility in improving the image of the police and increasing publicconfidence in its members. Therefore, the reports that have come forward over thelast period have sought to address some of the complaints and the Minister ofNational Security has in fact attempted, in many ways, to have theserecommendations implemented in accordance with the wishes of the PoliceComplaints Authority. Therefore, as the Minister with responsibility for publicadministration, I think that the whole question of improving the image of thepolice service and the public service generally, is something that we arestruggling very hard to achieve in the public service of Trinidad and Tobago.

You will find that in the police service today, there is the concept of looking atthe persons who complain and approach the police for support and assistance.There is an entirely new orientation. They are now speaking about “clients” and“customers”, making sure the police officers recognize that they are there to serveand help, and they are there to facilitate and not to be brutal, and, like in the past,take advantage of people. It is a new image that is being promoted in the policeservice. It is consistent with the Government’s overall thrust to have a new policyapproach, and a new agenda to deal with public administration, focussing on thepeople and the citizens as our customers, as our clients and giving them firstpriority and full preference in this regard. Mr. President, I believe that the wholequestion of seeking to promote a better image of the public service and the policeservice is very important.

In Sen. Shabazz’s contribution he spoke about the last time he asked the hon.Minister of National Security a question about the SRPs, and he said that the hon.Minister said that if the information is brought to him he would look into it and


808

deal with it. Mr. President, I want to tell Sen. Shabazz that the information thatwas brought to the hon. Minister was dealt with at an earlier stage, but theparticular individuals’ names that were submitted, for some reason, were notaddressed at the time when he submitted his particular complaint or grievance.

I want to give Sen. Shabazz the assurance that the matter has now beenbrought to my attention just a couple days ago. We know that it is dealing withthe payment of compassionate gratuities to about 12 police officers who wereformerly SRPs. A number of them have since died whilst they were in office, andthat matter is, in fact, being addressed by my ministry at this particular time.

4.00 p.m.So I am sure that the next time you speak in this Parliament on this particular

matter, the Minister of National Security will be able to let you know that thismatter has been completely addressed, finally.

Sen. Shabazz: I ask just one question of the hon. Minister. In view of the factthat it was passed on so long ago, how come it only reached you a few days ago?

Sen. The Hon. W. Mark: No, no, no. What I am saying is that the matter—Ithink for the last couple of years we have used Regulation 14 of the PensionsRegulations to compensate those SRPs who are not entitled to pensions, given thepresent circumstances that you made mention of earlier. We have, in fact, beenable to facilitate, under Regulation 12 of the Pensions Regulations, scores of SRPofficers in terms of providing them with what has been called compassionategratuities. What I am saying is that some other names went forward and thosepeople have been paid but the names that you have submitted have now reachedme. In other words, the Minister passed them on to me and I am taking action tohave that matter addressed.

I have the names of the people, the sums of moneys involved and I am surethat my Ministry will deal with that expeditiously. The sad thing about it, Mr.President, is that out of the 12 names Sen. Muhummad Shabazz submitted, andthese are people who were called out to serve this country between 1973 and1983, eight of them have died and their legal representatives are the ones who willmake the claim and so on. I think two of them are still alive and two are still in theforce, as the case may be, or one is still in the force. The important thing is,however, that the whole question of terms and conditions for SRPs is somethingthat is now being addressed by the Parliamentary Legislative Committee ofCabinet of which Minister Theodore is a member, I am a member and theAttorney General chairs that particular committee.


I want to deal with this question a little because I agree with Sen. NafeesaMohammed—I stand firmly by my position. One thing with me is that I amconsistent. You cannot deny consistency and we are trying very hard to bring thisthing to closure. It is not an easy matter because, as you know, the SpecialReserve Police Act has been in existence since 1906. The Special Reserve PoliceAct has been around for a couple of decades now. We are now seeking to revisethat particular Act and, when that Act is revised and/or amended, we will putappropriate terms and conditions attached to that Act as regulations so that apolice officer who is an SRP, when he joins the police service or he is called out,he would know what his entitlements are, whether it is gratuity, compassionateleave, sick leave or vacation leave.

The sad thing about it is that these people have been working for years anddecades but I think that, for instance, in the years gone by, Mr. President, theSupplemental Police Act was implemented the way it was supposed to beimplemented. If people were needed for four hours, they were called out for fourhours and they went back home. What happened is over the last 10, 20 years,people were called out and they became part of the regular police service and thatis where this problem arose.

We are trying to grapple with it because it is not something that startedyesterday. It has been in existence for almost two to three decades in Trinidad andTobago and the Special Reserve Police officers obviously are concerned. When Iwas in a position to help they raised it with me. I am very concerned about theirmatter. We are grappling with that matter very seriously. We have to find asolution one way or the other to bring closure to this matter involving the SRPs inTrinidad and Tobago.

You know, it reminds me also of the temporary officers in the public servicewho would have worked for 10, 15, 20 or 30 years and, when they left the service,Mr. President, they had to approach some parliamentarian or Cabinet Minister togo to Cabinet to get, under the same Regulation 14 of the Pension Regulations, 12days’ pay for each year of effective service. That was the sort of situation where,because of who you knew, people used to get through and those people who didnot know anyone and did not have access to a politician could not enjoy, forinstance, some kind of gratuity at the end of their process.

I am happy to know that in 1997 we were able to introduce the Law ReformPensions Act which, for the first time, has brought an end to that uncertaintyinvolving temporary officers, be they in the teaching service, the police service,


810

the civil service, where, once you are temporary in different areas of the publicservice and you would have worked, for instance, for 10 continuous years in thepublic service you are now entitled to a full pension as if you were a permanentlyemployed worker in the public service whether you are a Clerk I, a messenger or achauffeur as the case may be. That has given the public officer, the civil servantsand public officers generally a certain sense of ease. The tension is reduced andwe are trying, Mr. President, to address the question affecting the SRPs. I amhopeful that before the end of this year, maybe by August or before, we would beable to find a resolution to this problem.

One of the things that we intend to do is to introduce new terms andconditions of employment that would govern the engagement of SRPs in the policeservice. You need to have that, just as how we want to introduce what is called“Terms and conditions of appointment for unorganized labour in Trinidad andTobago”. Just like you have the minimum wage of $7, we want to have terms andconditions of employment for unorganized labour in Trinidad and Tobago. So forany transnational corporation that comes into Trinidad and Tobago, the employerwould know that these are some of the basic terms and conditions that must beadhered to when employing citizens of Trinidad and Tobago to work in theirestablishment as the case may be.

Sen. Jagmohan: Mr. President, I am grateful that the Minister has given way.A question has come to mind immediately. Can the Minister advise that if such ameasure to compensate unorganized labour in a particular way is put in place,does this mean that trade unions would now be replaced by that Act when itcomes into being?

Sen. The Hon. W. Mark: Not at all. I think, for instance, that the tradeunions would love that because they only represent 30 per cent of the workforce.Organized labour is only 30 per cent and there are almost 600,000 people in theworkforce in Trinidad and Tobago. There might be close to about 520,000 to540,000 employed. The unemployment rate is now 11.7 per cent, the last figurewe had. We want to bring it down to zilch, nada, zero. The important thing hereis, however, that just as the minimum wage was brought on the scene, it is aminimum, you could go above it.

Some employers as you know, Sen. Jagmohan, use that $7 almost like thefloor price for labour and that is totally unacceptable in many cases. Theimportant thing, Mr. President, is that this question of the SRP about which Sen.Shabazz and Sen. Nafeesa Mohammed spoke, and even if Sen. Mahabir-Wyattwas here today she would have been speaking to that issue as well, is something


with which we are seeking to grapple and I am sure we will find a resolution tothat matter very shortly.

Mr. President, I want to indicate, on this matter of the Police ComplaintsAuthority, we are hoping that with this amendment citizens of Trinidad andTobago and the Police Complaints Authority as a whole would be able to expandits network to capture, for instance, complaints from those particular officers who,for some reason or the other, as I said, are not properly covered in the originalAct. This is what the purpose of this measure is all about.

We have done much over the last few years to improve the image of thepolice. Even though crime is something that, for instance, we always want undercontrol—and nobody could argue with the fact that over the last four years thisGovernment has not done extremely well in trying to address the question. Now,we are not gods; we are not perfect. We were able to provide, whether you like itor not, close to 100 Cherokee Jeeps—E999—throughout the country. We have,for instance, one of the most modern communications networks at policeheadquarters in terms of new technology in dealing with, for instance, rapidresponse. We have also been able to provide the police service with hundreds ofnew vehicles. Of course some have been cannibalized and the Minister ofNational Security is working on that particular matter right now to bring morevehicles on the road at a cheaper price because it was a bit expensive at one time.

What is happening is that the Minister of National Security is workingfeverishly to ensure that the citizens of this country at least have some degree ofsafety and security, both in terms of property and person. That is what we areconcerned about. While, as I said, Mr. President, we would not be able to solve allthe problems, I recall back in 1994 when I was on the Opposition Benches, it wasa case of only gangland murders, mafia-style murders in this country and, ofcourse, this Government came in here with a serious approach to crime.

We have not dealt with this situation as effectively as we would have likedbut, Mr. President, nobody can argue that this Government has been the toughestGovernment on the drug lords in this country. We have dealt very severely withthe drug people in this land. Some have been extradited, some have been executedand some are still in jail languishing. The fact of the matter is that this is one areawhilst, I mean to say, it is a problem, it is one from which we cannot escape, Mr.President. The global drug trade is a problem. It is a trillion dollar industry. It isnot an easy industry. It is a global network and all countries are grappling with thedrug trade.


812

Somebody told me recently in Barbados, which was a very quiet and serenecountry, every three days somebody is found dead on the beach because the drugtrade has infiltrated Barbados in a way that they probably never expected. Now,we are fortunate in Trinidad and Tobago, Mr. President, that we have aGovernment in power that has declared war on the drug trade [Desk thumping]and the drug lords in this country. That is why today in this country we havecrimes of passion, other crimes of passion, and so on. There is a new dimension interms of crime and we are trying to see how best we can resolve these matters.

So I do not think that, for instance, the Opposition can really seriously arguethat this Government has not done much in terms of that matter. There areskirmishes here and there, we cannot escape from that. We have difficulties butthe Government is very, very resolute on this particular question and everybodyknows that. [Desk thumping] Everybody knows that the Government is resolutelyagainst crime and wants to maintain law and order in Trinidad and Tobago. Thisis why, up to this time as we speak, there are joint patrols. The Minister broughtout the army some time last year.

Sen. Prof. Spence: Mr. President, I wonder if the hon. Minister considers that bysetting a bad example of breaking the law and not attending to it, this is probably doingmore to encourage crime than all he can do to stop it. [Desk thumping]

Sen. The Hon. W. Mark: I know Sen. Prof. Spence has been trying allafternoon to provoke me in a particular direction. [Laughter] I promise him thatthere is a motion on the adjournment scheduled for the next sitting of Parliamentand I know that he will have ample time, through Sen. Prof. Julian Kenny, to getan appropriate response from my colleague. At this time, Mr. President, all Iwould say to the honourable Senate is that no one can deny the fact that theGovernment of Trinidad and Tobago has really been doing a lot to address thisquestion of crime and insecurity in terms of person and property.

4.15 p.m.

This is why sometimes when I hear the Opposition talk on the issue of thepolice and their concerns about the police—like Sen. Shabazz, who is concernedabout the army, the police and, particularly, the special reserve police—it bringsback chilling memories of when I was there on the side where Sen. NafeesaMohammed is right now, and I remember that the PNM, back then in 1995,brought a bill here to overthrow the police service.

Sen. Tota-Maharaj: That is a shame!


Sen. The Hon. W. Mark: They brought a bill here to fire the Commissionerof Police and to abolish the Police Service Commission.

Sen. Cuffy Dowlat: That is true!

Sen. The Hon. W. Mark: That is a fact! That is recorded in Hansard. Theydid that. We opposed that. It was a blistering attack. They had to withdraw thebill. We forced them to withdraw that bill, the Opposition and the Independentscombined. They brought a bill to fire the Commissioner of Police, at that timeJules Bernard—I remember that—also, to get rid of the Police ServiceCommission and to establish this board. I remember that. So when they talk abouthypocrisy, about whom are they talking?

Sen. Tota-Maharaj: Double scandal!

Sen. The Hon. W. Mark: Let us be serious, Mr. President. I think we have tobe serious. I was here and contributed to that debate. That is the one she should goback to the record and quote for me.

So, Mr. President, this matter really is a very simple and straightforward one,but we know that we are in the particular season and everybody is heightened up,so we have to get what we got from the Opposition earlier.

But, the key thing is, I think the Opposition has recognized the importance ofthis matter. They have concerns and I want to say that their concerns are myconcerns. They have concerns about the SRPs; we have concerns about the SRPs,too, and we want to work toward resolving those issues. But the principle of thisBill cannot be argued against. I think everybody in this Senate, including theOpposition, will support this Bill. It is a very straightforward measure. Itaddresses, for instance, a matter involving the SRPs and the municipal police. Wewant to get them into the net in order that the Police Complaints Authority maydo its work better. I think all of us will support this Bill at the end of the day.

I thank you very much, Mr. President.

Sen. Mahadeo Jagmohan: Mr. President, I thank you very much for therecognition, Sir. Before I proceed, I want to compliment my colleague, Sen.Shabazz, in championing the cause of the special reserve policemen and the veryspirited manner in which he made his contribution. Also, the Leader of this side ofthe Senate, Sen. Nafeesa Mohammed, has always done us proud by very goodresearch, backed by facts that cannot be doubted, in making her contribution. So Iput on record, Sir, the two brilliant contributions from my colleagues here.

Police Complaints Authority (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, February 22, 2000[SEN. JAGMOHAN]

814

I intend not to be very long on this matter because my colleagues havespoken. I wish to get the attention of the hon. Minister of National Security—

Sen. Brig. Theodore: All the time.

Sen. M. Jagmohan:—when he is replying. He said one complainant cancomplain under several headings of the Police Complaints Authority, if Iunderstood him well—and I can be corrected if I did not understand him well. Iwould like to have that part explained.

Mr. President, there is absolutely no argument that can be put forward in thiscountry against the yeoman service that we get from the police in this country.[Desk thumping] The police are taking good care of everybody in this country.Senators would recall when electricity went off here, how caring the policemenwere in this Chamber. Some people were scared but the policemen put everybodyat ease. I compliment the police, but I want to remind those who have authorityover the police that the police must be motivated at all times and be given thefullest support to execute their duties and responsibilities so they may strive forexcellence to protect and serve.

Sen. Cuffy Dowlat: And we have equipped them well.

Sen. M. Jagmohan: I have a problem—anyway, he is still in the Chamber—when I raise some very pertinent points, the relevant Ministers are not in theChamber, but I suppose they get it from the Hansard. It is the first time in mymany years of industrial relations that I have heard about compassionate gratuity.I know gratuities of terminal benefits are paid on compassionate grounds, but I donot know of compassionate gratuity. Okay. Be that as it may.

The hon. Minister of Public Administration alluded to jeeps and policevehicles. I ask him, or perhaps the Minister of National Security, to give us someindication of how many of those vehicles are in working condition, or he mightwant to answer it in another way. How many of those vehicles are out of service?

I was alarmed when the Minister of Public Administration mentioned minutesago that some of the police vehicles were cannibalized. Cannibalized by whom?Cannibalized where? That is a terrible statement to make in this Parliament. Ifthey were cannibalized, then that is interfering with good order and thecontribution of the taxpayers of this country. The Minister has to explain. If thesepolice vehicles are not all in working order, perhaps that is the reason for theescalation of crime that has gone wild and is uncontrollable in this country.


I have been advised that in an important area like St. Clair, the police stationthere does not have a working vehicle. Can somebody explain why things havebeen allowed to deteriorate in this manner? How can they solve crime in the cityof Port of Spain if a place like St. Clair does not have a working vehicle in thepolice station? This is something we have to address. The lack of a vehicle willdetermine the attitude of the officers with respect to solving crime.

Mr. President, sometime ago we heard that the Besson Street Police Stationwas not fit for human habitation, or was not a proper place for the police to carryout their duties and responsibilities. They were removed and we got some kind ofindication that the place would either be refurbished or put in order. We are nothearing anything about that, but that is a focal point for the police service in thecity of Port of Spain, and the lack of police activity in that location has left anumber of people frightened in this country.

Sen. Mark: On a point of clarification. If the hon. Senator is not aware, Iinform him that the Besson Street Police Station has been relocated to just behindthe Besson Street Police Station. There is a construction process that is supposedto begin shortly for a new police station at Besson Street.

Sen. M. Jagmohan: That is nice. People in the country are bothered. Well,maybe the newspaper people are still here and the country will know about it.

Sen. Brig. Theodore: People like you bother them. You are spreading falsetalk.

Sen. M. Jagmohan: I beg your pardon, Minister.

Mr. President, I am not one of those fortunate persons who get press coverageadequately.

Sen. Brig. Theodore: And you are looking for them.

Sen. M. Jagmohan: I heard a while ago, and the newspaper is reporting this,reference to members of a particular religious organization and their beingassociated with all kinds of activities. I say it is very sad and unfortunate thatreference is being made to people of a particular religious grouping, and all theother religious organizations in Trinidad and Tobago have all the people who aremembers, or associates, or adherents of a particular faith and nobody refers tothem, but they refer to a particular group in this country. It is the people’s right tofollow or to be adherents of any religious organization, but it is terrible whenpeople of that group alone are always referred to in a manner that is, to my mind,unacceptable.

Police Complaints Authority (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, February 22, 2000[SEN. JAGMOHAN]

816

Mr. President, I want to make a small reference here to the Bill. On page 2,new clause 17A; the part that reads:

“The Authority shall keep accurate and proper accounts and records of alltransactions in accordance with internationally and locally recognizedaccounting standards...”

Why is it worded like that? Accurate and proper. The word “accurate” wassufficient. Will the Minister take that into account and at the committee or someother stage do something. Remove one of the words there.

Then, when we go a little lower down, we would see a few things which, atthis stage, I will not mention. But, when I go to page 3, a continuation of newclause 17B(1) which reads:

“(b) a copy of the audited statement of accounts and such information relating tothe operations of the Authority as the Minister may require.”

I do not buy the point that only lawyers can talk about law, or only lawyers cantalk about proper construction and grammar as far as the English language isconcerned. I am saying that this should have another word:

“(b) a copy of the audited statement of accounts and such…”—a word should be put in—

“…other information relating to the operations of the Authority as theMinister may require…”

—and you finish that line—“…from time to time.”

Reading a statement in that way would be foolproof, or should I say, it would becomplete and give details of what is required.

Mr. President, a great deal was said on this Bill by my colleagues. I associatewith all that my colleagues said, but I wish to state that the timing of thisamendment is sending the wrong signal to the country. It is sending a signal tostate that people, or rather a galaxy of complaints are compiled daily and becauseof some deficiency in the Act, they are unable to deal with the Act and, as such,this Police Complaints Authority (Amdt.) Bill had to come. I am sorry. I beg todisagree. The timing of this Bill is wrong and this amendment is piecemeal. Itcould have been done differently.

Mr. President, you will recall in 1993—almost everybody here can recall—theparent Act was being considered by the then government and brought in order to


establish good order in the country, not necessarily in the police service. Therewere people who were complaining and making all kinds of unnecessary andunwarranted statements with respect to the operations of the police. Therefore, Istate that the intent of this Bill is good but the timing is, to my mind, not right andit is not adequate for the present situation.

Mr. President, I thank you.Mr. President: Hon. Members, even though it is tea time, I am advised that,

by agreement, Members will have no problem in this Senate continuing andcompleting this Bill, so I call the Minister of National Security.

The Minister of National Security (Sen. Brig. The Hon. Joseph Theodore): Mr.President, I would like to thank the hon. Senators who contributed. There have beensome very useful comments. While I will be dealing with each group of commentsseparately, I would like to say that the two matters which were raised concerning thematter of the audit being done by the Auditor General and tightening it up to ensure thatit is done, we will have a look at it at the committee stage. There was also anothercomment about the Bill which I will come to.

4.30 p.mI would like to thank the Senators for being very understanding and appreciating

the reason for the Bill, notwithstanding the fact that the matter of the special reservepolice (SRPs) is presently undergoing review to be resolved. Sen. Shabazz started offin his usual way, seeking the interest of the SRPs. I know as a former policeman hedoes have some vested interest but—[Interruption] perhaps for a very short time.Nevertheless, I know he is interested. He was quite correct that my ministry, theGovernment and I are interested in what we found where the SRPs were concerned.

I am very disturbed. I read the O'Dowd Report and I am aware of therecommendations. What we had intended to do when we looked at the issue of theSRPs was to ensure two things: firstly that the SRP Regulations were observed. Whatseems to be a major problem—and I have tried to explain this before, Mr.President—is in speaking about SRPs, in a contribution such as Sen. Shabazz’s, theymix up the two, and behave as though there is some concerted effort to make lifedifficult for the SRPs who are making a contribution.

If the hon. Senators would recall, Sen. N. Mohammed said it just now. One ofthe recommendations in the O'Dowd Report had to do with the “whole-timetemporary” SRPs and that the matter of working “whole-time temporary” should bestopped and the SRPs should function under the Act as SRPs. An SRP is somebodywho is called out to work. If the person stays at home and becomes ill, there is no


818

question of sick leave. If the person stays home and cannot come out, there is noquestion of his being absent and being penalized for not coming to work; because itis not a full-time job. What has happened over the years—I believe as many as 30years, because when I came into office there were SRPs there for 15 years already,who had been working this sort of odd arrangement. Where the problem arose is,despite the fact that they were working “whole-time temporary”—which is a termcoined by one of the administrations to cater for these people—at no time was theclass of “whole-time temporary” addressed and regulations put in place to deal withthe “whole-time temporary”. What happened, Mr. President, is that the part-timeregulations were the only regulations under which SRPs were governed and werepaid and could be called out for work. What we understand is that there are SRPs—part-timers—who are called out for four hours and they leave and go home when thefour hours are finished.

As was said in the Act, these were for working people: members of thecommunity who wished to make some contribution and came out in their spare timeto assist the police. They were leave reliefs, reliefs when people fell ill; they couldbe called out if there is a need for additional police at certain state occasions. Thiswhole thing got out of control. While there are SRPs now, working four hours,nobody can claim that they are being disadvantaged because they are only beingcalled out for four hours and sent home, as Sen. Shabazz is claiming. One is mixingthe two and apportioning blame for the way the SRP is meant to work, because thisother category of SRP has come into being and is being virtually misused.

One of the things we attempted to do—before I go on let me have a look at someof the other remarks made by Sen. Shabazz. I must confess that he was quiteflambouyant but, in essence, he said very little. This matter of payment for the SRPs;how they are being treated, they are not being rewarded. Well surely, they are notworking for free. When an SRP comes and volunteers to come out and put on auniform and perform functions, he obviously has to receive training. During thetraining, he becomes au courant with what his terms and conditions are. He isgranted a precept and he goes to work. Suddenly, now, we are being told that theymust get sick leave, they must get pension and they must get housing allowance.Certainly we seem to be continuing the charade and misleading the public and theSRPs themselves, because they are believing this talk that they are entitled to all ofthese things. What is happening now? [Interruption] Well, maybe, but based onwhat I am hearing—

Again, one of the things Sen. Shabazz claimed is that we are passing laws sopeople can complain on the SRPs. I have never heard anything so disjointed and


misconceived. The law is not being passed—[Interruption] I wrote it down here. Letme quote, Mr. President.

“We are passing the Bill so people can complain on them.”

No, we are passing the Bill because people have begun to complain on them. That iswhy we are passing the Bill. This is not a matter where we are passing a Bill toencourage people to complain on the SRPs. This is totally unfair and unjust. I wouldcertainly hope that the hon. Senator would explain that remark.

Sen. Shabazz: Mr. President, just to correct the Minister. I was saying that theSRPs have nobody to complain to, but the Minister is asking that people complain onthem. I am not saying that the Bill was passed so that people would complain onthem. I never said that. I am saying that they have nobody to complain to, but theMinster is setting it up so that people would complain on them. I am saying that theMinister should balance it off and make the correction at the other end. I am notagainst that Bill.

Sen. Brig. The Hon. J. Theodore: Mr. President, we cannot encourageindiscipline. If an SRP is somehow or the other disrespectful or treats a member ofthe public in a bad way, he has every right to be disciplined and the complaint mustcome. If we are trying to set standards whereby the conditions of work are notsuitable to the incumbent, are we saying that person is free to behave as he likes andnobody can complain on him? This is the indiscipline we are speaking about, that isplaguing this country today: people must do what they want! Why is this authoritythere, why are people complaining on the SRPs? Anybody who does somethingwrong should be complained against. We are putting measures in place forcomplaints to be heard and dealt with. If the Senator wants to call names, he shouldmake the complaint against the person. [Interruption] The Senator is not an SRP. Iam dealing only with the police today.

We talk of the community police; that they do roster duty. The Senator got itright. They are paid. They do roster duty. They are trained and are given work to do,that is in keeping with their training. Yes they are drivers. Yes, they are carpenters.Yes, they are mechanics, but indiscipline, certainly will not be tolerated and we arenot passing the Bill so people could complain on them, but rather it is to allow theauthority to get on with the work.

On the matter of promotion. A minister cannot interfere with promotion: thereare procedures. When we talk about political interference—I learnt a lot from mypredecessor: to avoid trying to be a commissioner of police and run the police force.There is a police commissioner and there are rules and regulations governing the


820

conduct of police work, including investigations. The idea is this: to leave them, letthem get on with the job. I will provide the administrative support and services forthem to do their job. My job is, I go to Cabinet, I budget money for them, but I amnot into the police. What is political interference is people trying to tell the policecommissioner who to investigate and who he must go by and whether or not—if hecarries out a search some place—that person should have been searched. Do youknow a minister actually apologized to somebody because the police issued awarrant and carried out a search? I think that is definitely out of order. As far aspolitical interference goes, I feel the police should be left alone.

The hon. Minister of Public Administration mentioned it earlier; concerning theinterest that politicians seek to show in the police service. He is right. Fortunately Ihave been in the service. I have already worn a uniform and I have reached thehighest rank in the defence force, I do not need to be a commissioner of police. Letthe Commissioner of Police get on with his job. The Senator is quite correct. I amconcerned about the SRPs; I have been since I came into office, because I am one ofthe people who criticized how the SRPs were being misused. But, I come into officeand what do I find? I find that we have an Act which deals only with part-time SRPs,but there is this other group of SRPs who have, over the years, developed some sortof permanence in the police service.

4.40 p.m.Mr. President, in trying to deal with this we attempted to use the same Special

Reserve Police Act and create regulations which deal with part-timers andalongside that create regulations which dealt with the whole-time/part-timers.That took over a year going back and forth. We found in the end that it was notworkable because we would have to amend the Act to accommodate suchregulations. We moved away from that. We asked ourselves, “How can we dealwith this group of people who are working whole time—they call themselves,whole-time/part-time; whole-time temporary?” I found it a very strange term; it iscontrary in itself. How can you be whole time and temporary at the same time?

Again, it was a device used by a previous administration. When they refusedto give the police the additional manpower they required, what they had to do wasto bring in these people, and the Commissioner has the authority to call outspecial reserve police, which he did, and where he was short they simplyremained. We are now faced with the problem of following the recommendationmade by the O'Dowd Report, where it was stated quite clearly that they should beabsorbed into the regular force; that was done. There were two intakes in theprevious administration that absorbed the SRPs.


Mr. President, do you know what happened? It continued; it did not stop. Theinstruction that the Commissioner of Police has today is that no new whole-time/part-time people are to be created, and special reserve police are to be part-time. So we have reached a point where the size of the whole-timers is notgrowing. We have consolidated the number.

We have completed the regulations for the part-time SRPs; that is done, but Icannot come here and lay those regulations only to be asked, “Well, here you aregiving me regulations for part-timers, what about those who work whole time?So I have to wait until the regulations for the whole time people are completed.Let me tell you where these regulations are.

Mr. President, I do not know if we saw in the newspapers, about two weeksago, a complaint from the Police Social and Welfare Club. In fact, they met withthe Chief Personnel Officer and they complained that the SRPs who are workingwhole time were being sent home. I had to strongly deny that, because that wasnever the intention of the Ministry of National Security. But I found out that itwas the subject of a discussion, that was one of the options, terminate, and letthem go home and deal only with the part-timers. This is not the line that theMinistry proposes to take.

What the Ministry wants to do is to have whoever is serving whole time tocontinue serving whole time, but there will be a cut-off point and anybody joiningbeyond a certain date will no longer be whole time. That would be a wasting assetvia attrition, as they disappear we will have only part time special reserve policewhich would be in keeping with the recommendation of the O'Dowd Report andthe Special Reserve Police Act which deals with part timers. The regulations weare seeking to produce will do what does not exist today.

I must confess that these people who are working whole time have no idea ofwhat are their terms and conditions. They assume that because they are workingalongside full-time officers on a regular basis, that they are entitled to all thebenefits that will accrue to a full-time officer, and that is where the problem lies.We cannot give these whole time people holidays, allowances and a pensionbased on the Act because the Act does not cater for that. It does not make sensecreating a whole new category of policemen to deal with this group of people, sowe are now negotiating with the Chief Personnel Officer. The last time we spokewith the CPO, which was just over a week ago, was to decide that the intent is notto send anybody home or to deny anybody employment, but to confirm thoseareas where people in this category are employed.


822

What will happen in the end is that they would be replaced either by two part-time shifts, four hours apiece, or by regular police. Sen. Shabazz mentioned theHall of Justice and here. Let us say that we have whole time SRPs working here,they will continue until such time as they are ready to move on or qualify to enterinto the regular police service. Here again is a criticism that is being levelled atthe Ministry as though somebody is spitefully trying to keep these people out ofthe regular police service.

There are qualifications that are required to enter the regular police serviceand we are not going to compromise those conditions. We accept that a few yearsago special reserve police were accepted into the regular police service withoutthe prerequisites simply because a decision was made that these two groups ofSRPs would become regular police. We do not need to perpetuate that, theeducational standards have been raised and the entry requirements are fixed.However, there are 58 SRPs who have been selected and approved to enter thepolice service and trained to become regular officers. The remainder will be parttimers or part-time/full-time.

These full-time/temporary officers will not increase in size, but we simplycannot do away with them. They will work on and as their numbers decrease theywill either be replaced by part timers or by regular police; it is as simple as that.One of the things that we are trying to do is that in these regulations we will haveto make it clear to these officers that since they are working “temporary/wholetime” what type of conditions we would apply to them that will equate with thenature of the work they are performing. We are talking about sick leave, becausethey are coming out full time as opposed to a part-time person who is at home.They are coming out full time, they are paid on a monthly basis, so we mustconsider putting into their regulations provision for sick leave, privilege leave,allowances and so forth.

Where the problem arises is with pension; they do not contribute to a pensionscheme while the regular police do. So again, we have asked the Chief PersonnelOfficer to work out a formula which will allow them, at least, a gratuity onretirement, so this is where we are. They are going to come back to us with theirproposals and we will negotiate in consultation with the police service and thePolice Welfare Association.

As I mention the Police Welfare Association, another thing stated here todayis that these SRPs have no representation, but surely it is a contradiction in itselfthat here is the Police Social and Welfare Association seeking the interest of the


special reserve police, attending conferences with the CPO and yet we are beingtold that they have no representation. They do have representation and as far asthe Police Social and Welfare Association is concerned they represent all police.In fact, now it is going to be more difficult to tell them they do not, because theyare part of the Act. As Sen. Shabazz said, if it is that they fall under the Act fordiscipline surely they have the right to be represented.

Mr. President, there is a lot of mis-information about the special reserve policeand I acknowledge that that is because the SRPs themselves are not quite clear asto what they are entitled, so they listen to people and they have somebody likeSen. Shabazz who will come here and articulate their views and make it seem asthough they are being disadvantaged deliberately while they are working so hard,but that is certainly not the position.

I am glad for his interest, because I too am as interested as he is in the welfareof the SRPs. [Interruption]

Sen. Yuille-Williams: Mr. President, I was listening intently to the hon.Minister. Just for my information, these full-time/temporary or whatever you callthem, how are they paid, monthly or hourly? I am not too clear, so I want to findout.

Sen. Brig The Hon. J. Theodore: They are paid monthly by the policeservice. In fact, there is a column in the budget that recognizes them, whichcompounds matters because they are recognized on the one hand and they areunder an Act which does not cover them; that is the problem. So the regulationswe are making in consultation with the Chief Personnel Officer must be withinthe law, because we see no reason to amend the Act. We also see it as beingunfair to revert wholesale to only part-time and disregard those who have beenworking, because they have accumulated years of service. When I came intooffice there were some with at least 15 years service.

The matter of soldiers not being paid will be resolved when the Senator comeswith the names and the amount of money that the soldiers who are alleged to havecomplained to him, have been identified. I will deal with it. [Sen. Shabazz laughs]

Sen. Shabazz: “Yuh give me a challenge now: bring the names Shabazz. Yuhtalking like Dhanraj, bring the names.”

Sen. Brig. The Hon. J. Theodore: I am as anxious as you are to see that theyget it.

Sen. Mark: So you will shut your mouth from now on.


824

Sen. Brig. The Hon. J. Theodore: I know the Minister of PublicAdministration was trying to deal with a situation where certain names werebrought to my attention by the Senator last year. It is strange, and I think Imentioned it to him, but he brought me 12 names, and he said that these peoplehad served and their payments were not being addressed.

I went ahead and put those names into the system and about a month or twoafter the names came back to me to send them to the Minister to be processed. Ichecked the names and I must confess that I am not one to sign on the bottom linewithout reading what I sign. Somehow the names I saw did not ring a bell, so Isaid, “Show me the list that the Senator sent to me and let me read the names.”None of the 12 names I got were of the 12 that were handed to me. Thatinformation went forward and those are the ones the Minister has dealt with topay. Sen. Shabazz’s 12 names were subsequently located.

I sent 12 names to the police and they sent me back a different 12, it is assimple as that; so I went a second time and we have names here that the Senatorwould recognize: Sgt. David John, Corporal Claude Brown, Carlton Thomas,Luciun St. Vincent, Gerald Lemo, Ramnarace Maharaj, Elvis Toppin and JacobQuashie. These are the names that the Senator sent. I must confess that we had itchecked by the legal people and under the Special Reserve Police Act. We had thenames checked by the Comptroller of Accounts and everybody has checked it.The Chief Personnel Officer has also advised that the payment is in order and weare continuing the exercise, because there are others who have left whosecompensations were not addressed. I thank Sen. Shabazz for that. By bringing itto our attention we are going through the entire list now and they are comingforward in bits and pieces.

I wish to assure you that there is no intent to neglect these payments and weare not waiting for them to die before we go ahead doing it. We hope we can getthem done far more quickly. There is also another claim made that for specialreserve police killed in the line of duty, their relatives need to go to Cabinet to getpayment. Just about two years ago there was a Protective Services CompensationAct passed in this House and that is where they go. The reason for that is to dealwith police officers—not only those who die in the line of duty but also those whoare injured because they will get medical treatment, but those who are maimed orsomehow suffer some permanent injury, to see that they get compensation.

There is a board and what I have found is that many people are not aware, sowe are going to be advertising that this Compensation Act is in place, that a board


exists and where they sit, so that relatives or applicants can come in and maketheir claims. There are several things affecting the SRPs. The matter of disciplineis the least of them all.

4.55 p.m.

Sen. Nafeesa Mohammed went into the background of the reason for thecomplaints authority and she did some research with the O’Dowd Report anddealt a lot with the past problems of the police service and so forth, thatadministrations have grappled with and perhaps she should have continued to saythat this administration continues to grapple with, and that there is a politicizationof the police service. I saw it before I came into office, and I must confess that itwas rampant and definitely very damaging to the police service.

Sen. Mark: He was politicizing the police service. [Laughter]

Sen. Brig. The Hon. J. Theodore: Mr. President, it was very, very bad. Itmay be said that the commissioner, at the time, was difficult to deal with, but Isuspect that the manner in which he was threatened, he refused to co-operate.Perhaps we cannot blame him. [Interruption] Yes, he was kicked upstairs ontelevision and was told that he would be working in the Prime Minister’s Officeand so forth. Very little compensation for an efficient professional officer whowas trying to do his work. Very, very bad. So I have learnt from my predecessor,not what to do but what to avoid and what I should not do. [Laughter] He hasbeen very good at showing me that a lot of things he did I should avoid andperhaps do the opposite. [Laughter] So I am grateful to him. [Interruption] Thehon. Senator does not have the privilege that he alone could say; he came veryclose to making a direct attack on—I would not say myself but certainly—theMinister of National Security. [Laughter] This is definitely not in this honourableSenate that is so well organized and works on professional levels. Very unkind. Iwould overlook that because I suspect that it is his one strong point and I do notwant to deny him that opportunity. [Laughter]

With respect to the level of staffing, Mr. President, Sen. Nafeesa Mohammed,as I said, went into a report that is about three years old and she is quite correct.The level of staffing in the complaints division was a major problem. We haveaddressed it and one of the problems that she did not mention, but I think iscontained in the report, is that the staff is not properly selected. They do not haveprofessional investigators or properly trained people; people were simplytransferred there. That matter has been addressed and I cannot say that all the


826

people they want are there but a significant number of additional staff has beenadded to the department.

As a matter of fact, as I pointed out in dealing with the Bill, for the periodMay 01, 1998 to April 1999, of the complaints received by the authority, 983reports came from the division and they were not challenged. There were 51 caseswhere applications were made for review and the authority has now satisfactorilyconcluded these. What we are seeing here is that there is a good workingrelationship between the authority and the division. If you want to lookhistorically at the attitude of the police, you would appreciate that probably theydid not think very kindly of this authority being put to oversee theirinvestigations. It is happening even now as civilians are added to the strength ofthe police service, but it is understandable and we would work with it and getthem to realize that all of this is being done to assist them, and certainly not tomake life difficult for them.

The matter of support staff, computer equipment and so forth are being dealtwith. We went through the various units and what the hon. Senator said is thatthere are real problems that affect the division. There is a struggle—I fully agreewith that—and I feel that it is something that we are all aware of and should dealwith. I agree with the hon. Senator that we must identify the problems and findways and means of dealing with that.

One of the problems that was brought to my attention was something that wasbandied about by the Opposition Bench, that simply buying vehicles and equipment forthe police service would not solve the problem because they needed training. Mr.President, I would like to read a bit of the sort of training that we have been doing in thepolice service. In order to give the officers the skill, knowledge and the ability to betterperform their duties, we have not only increased the strength of the police service, but anumber of courses have been conducted.

For the period 1993 to 1995 for example, considering that the police servicewas below strength and this increasing need for the use of the SRPs became moreprominent, we can see where, for that period 1993 to 1995, 368 new recruits werebrought into the police service, leaving the police service sadly under strength.

For the period 1996 to 1998, we were able to train 1,240 police officers for thepolice service all within the strength of the police service. That is withoutincreasing the strength of the police service. Even now the police service is stillbelow strength by about 800 to 900, which we would be addressing during thecourse of this year.


We have constructed new police stations, we have refurbished police stationsand there is one building I am glad to announce that would be restored shortly,that is the burnt-out police headquarters that stands at the corner of Sackville andSt. Vincent Streets. Contracts have been awarded and work would start shortly tobring the building back to its former prominence and glory. [Desk thumping]

Increased opportunities for training, between 1998 and 1999, 29 officers ofthe service received training abroad in areas such as law enforcement, firearms,explosives training and management development, while 295 others receivedtraining locally in such areas as management of aggressive behaviour,performance appraisal management and professional development.

The Ministry of National Security also conducts professional developmentseminars at the Joint Services Staff College for middle managers includingmembers of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service, geared at improving, amongother things, the communications and leadership skills of the officers. Weacknowledge a problem existed—and I would like to assure this honourableSenate that steps are being taken to deal with these problems.

The computerization of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service is an ongoingproject that commenced in 1994. As part of this project, 151 members of staff ofthe Ministry of National Security, police and civilians, have received computerliteracy training. Additionally, the police service has benefited from theinstallation of systems to facilitate more efficient processing of police records.During 1998 the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service completed installation of awide area and network communication system which covers seven divisionalheadquarters, thereby allowing officers at various stations to have ready access toinformation on criminal records, warrants, personal records, and firearms.

5.05 p.m.

We have on order at this time, a system called AFIS. It is the AutomatedFingerprint Identification System which is quite costly and which is being broughtdown to assist the police service in identifying fingerprints in a relatively shortspace of time. This system is so geared that it will be able to operate at the variousdivisions so one does not have to come to Port of Spain to get a match for afingerprint. What this system also does is permit what they call the developmentof mug shots where a witness describing the suspect can have an image developedof the person, and that can be used in the media to get the public’s assistance inreporting the presence of such a person in their area. So generally there is quite alot of activity taking place in the police service.


828

The Minister of Public Administration talked about image enhancement. Now,to me, image enhancement means better behaviour of the police because, ifpolicemen continue being disrespectful and terrorizing the civilian public, thatdoes not enhance their image. The training is going towards that and, while I seeextending the authority of the Police Complaints Authority as being useful, I donot see it as the be-all and end-all of improving the performance of the policeservice. So generally what we are looking at is, and again I go back to a phraseused by Sen. Mohammed, a better functioning, competent and efficient policeservice. That is what I think the entire country is looking for. That is what we arehoping to achieve.

The Senator mentioned the Barataria/San Juan area and I think I thanked heralready for reminding me that the PNM was building that police station some fiveto seven years before, had gotten nowhere with it and this administration was ableto have that station completed by the end of the next year. I see where it is servinga very useful purpose and I would like to assure the hon. Senator that we do havea programme in place to deal with providing the vehicles.

Somebody asked, I think it was Sen. Jagmohan, about just how many vehiclesare off the road. Well, I am familiar with these figures because this is somethingthat I have been looking at for the last month. The strength of the fleet of vehiclesthat should be in place to operate in the police service is 550 vehicles. There are300 working right now. This will tell you straightaway, we have a problem. Ofthese vehicles, 103 have been selected for repairs and we are collecting estimatesfrom the various garages in order to get the best deal to have them repaired. Weare looking at having these vehicles repaired over the next three or four months. Ihave received permission from Cabinet to lease 50 vehicles and Nipdec is beingapproached to identify vehicles for lease. The National Insurance PropertyDevelopment Company will identify, the vehicles through the normal tendersprocedure. Since we seem to be talking about matters that are not strictly lawful, Iam hearing noises from the other side.

Sen. Jagmohan, I think, mentioned cannibalization of vehicles. I think thatwas misspeak because the hon. Minister certainly cannot believe that the policeneed to do such a thing. These vehicles are going out. I was, therefore, a littlesurprised but I can assure you that there is no such thing going on. It is against theregulations to cannibalize a vehicle. There is really no need to do that. The othervehicles are going before a condemnation board and they will be auctioned in thenormal course of events. So what we are looking at is an improvement in the


situation through purchase and repairs and a very aggressive preventativemaintenance programme.

Now, notice I have said preventative maintenance, not maintenance, not fixwhen it is damaged but look at it during the course of its service to ensure that anydeterioration will be dealt with before it causes damage. The police garage isgeared for that now. I am satisfied that they have the wherewithal to handleinspections and minor repairs and what we will be doing is outsourcing the repairsto these selected prequalified garages and this will be an ongoing process. I thinkyou know as well as I, the maintenance of police vehicles was virtually non-existent and vehicles could not be spared, they were not taken in for regularinspections and they only saw the inside of the workshop when they were towedin after breaking down on the road or getting into an accident. So these mattersare being dealt with.

Mr. President, I thank the hon. Minister of Public Administration for hissupport and pointing out the various actions that are being taken to improve thepolice service. The matter of gaining public confidence in members of the policeservice is paramount and this will be parallel with the improved behaviour of thepolice.

Now, I would just like to read into the record, Mr. President, the percentagedecrease in some of the more serious complaints that have occurred over theyears. Sen. Nafeesa Mohammed mentioned battery, harassment and impolitebehaviour. There has been a decrease in complaints of battery by 75 per cent,harassment by 9 per cent, impolite behaviour by 9 per cent, not going to an arrestwith a warrant reduced by 29 per cent, failure to take a report, by 43 per cent andfailure to read a warrant by 64 per cent.

On the charge of failure to investigate, there are many complaints of peoplesaying they have lodged a complaint and nothing has happened. “It seems asthough the police is in cahoots with the person and they do not plan to takeaction”. Those complaints of failure to investigate have been decreased by 70 percent and failure to perform a duty has been decreased by 35 per cent. All in all, Ithink we can all be encouraged that we are on an upward path towards the virtualreform of the police service.

Now, a question was also raised concerning the discrepancy between thenumber of complaints. “How is it that one complainant, in making a complaint,can end up having it classified as two or three complaints?” Because of the waythe form is made out, there are charges of harassment, failure to perform andbattery. I will give you an example.


830

Let us assume that a complainant alleges that an officer struck him, pointedhis weapon at him and forced him into signing a statement. That is one personmaking a complaint coming out of one incident. The complaint form will nowshow charges of “Battery”, “Gun Drawn” and “Forced Statement”. So there willbe three complaints which will have to be investigated. There would, therefore,appear to be what we would call a discrepancy between the number ofcomplainants and the number of complaints. That is why earlier on I made it mybusiness to point out that there were so many complainants as opposed tocomplaints because the complaints, as you would see in the report, do create amuch different impression. There has been a reduction.

There has been good co-operation and the Minister of Public Administrationdid point out that the Besson Street Police Station, which was not fit foroccupation, has been relocated to much larger and better accommodation. Theproblem with the Besson Street Police Station did not come out of the conditionof the Besson Street Police Station. We knew all along that these officers had tobe removed from their former location. What caused the problem was acquiringthe present property to move the police and this was since May last year.

Mr. President: The speaking time of the hon. Senator has expired.

Motion made, That the hon. Senator’s speaking time be extended by 15minutes. [Sen. The Hon. W. Mark]

Question put and agreed to.Sen. Brig. The Hon. J. Theodore: Mr. President, I thank the Senators for

allowing me this time. It is not often that I speak for so long or even speak at allso I think I will make the best use of the time.

With regard to the Besson Street Police Station, since May last year the PoliceSocial and Welfare Club and everybody who was interested identified theirpresent location as where they would go and there was some dragging of the feetwith the landlord in getting the premises ready. We rent the place. It does notbelong to the Ministry. I was a little disturbed that the delay created a situationwhere the police refused to remain in the Besson Street Police Station and took tothe streets. We are trying to discourage that sort of behaviour and it is incumbenton the Ministry to take preemptive action and deal with things before they get outof hand.

That place certainly caught me by surprise because I knew it was there, Iknew they were moving and it is only when they went outside and complained


that the work was done and they were able to move in before the end of last year.Most people are made to believe that they moved because of the condition of theBesson Street Station. They were really complaining because repairs were beingdelayed on the place to which they wanted to go. They knew they were moving.They said, “Well, it is high time we get out of here”, but we all had accepted thatthe condition of the Besson Street Police Station warranted its being rebuilt andthat matter is being looked at. I cannot say it will happen this year.

There are several other projects we have in hand, with which we are nowdealing, to upgrade police stations throughout Trinidad and Tobago for the policeservice. It is costly but it is absolutely necessary that we do that because part ofthe improved conditions would be living conditions for the police service. So,generally, I trust I have dealt with the queries that have been raised.

Sen. Prof. Spence: Mr. President, the hon. Minister has not helped me withmy request of knowing to whom I could complain about lack of attention tocrossing at red lights or illegal actions in the savannah.

Sen. Mohammed: The hon. Minister has not really responded to mycomplaint that I had formally lodged in terms of the political assassination.

Sen. Brig. The Hon. J. Theodore. Mr. President, I am not going to direct thepolice about any investigation. I have no knowledge that I could give thishonourable House as to the state of the investigations. [Interruption] You see,when the police are conducting an investigation they keep in touch with thefamilies, they keep in touch with the people who can assist them in theirinvestigation. I am reluctant to go to the ACP Crime and ask him, “Give meconfidential information as to where you are”, “Who are your suspects?” and,“When will you make an arrest?”

Sorry, Mr. President, but I do not hold myself as being competent to do that.This could also be classified as political interference because I will not seek toinfluence the police in carrying out their investigations. There is a procedure to befollowed. All I can do, like the rest of us here, is hope that the investigations willcome to a close soon and that somebody will be identified, the arrest made and thematter taken to court.

5.20 p.m.Sen. Mohammed: Thank you very much, hon. Minister. I wonder if the hon.

Minister can give us the assurance then, that certainly there is no political attemptto cover up anything that is going on. I am not talking about the police. I amtalking about political.


832

Sen. Brig. The Hon. J. Theodore: What I can say is, Mr. President, this isthe first request of its kind that I have received from anyone to appear to interferewith the police and their investigation. All I can say is that, to date, I have onlyreceived one such request and, if the hon. Senator wishes to regard that as nopolitical interference to date, I think hers is the first effort.

Sen. Mohammed: I asked for an assurance, not a request.Sen. Brig. The Hon. J. Theodore: I cannot give any assurance. I can speak

for myself. I will say that I have no intention of interfering with the police serviceand I have no intention, even if I am asked, to seek to influence the police in theirinvestigation. I feel they have a right to get on with the job for which they havebeen trained and I will allow them that. Okay?

Sen. Mohammed: Thank you very much.Sen. Brig. The Hon. J. Theodore: Sen. Prof. Spence—I had a note here—is

concerned about the actions of police because he sees a lot of—Sen. Mohammed: Breaking of the law.Sen. Brig. The Hon. J. Theodore:—irresponsible driving by people on the roads.

One of the examples he brought was breaking traffic lights. I can refer him to aprogramme we have on the TV called “Eye On You”. What that does is shows you thevehicle committing the offence. Now, I have spoken with the people who do the showand I have asked the Commissioner of Police to ensure that policemen accompany thecamera crew, because what I would like to see and I think what you would like to see,is that when the fellow does something illegal, there is a policeman at the other end togive him a ticket. That is one thing we can do.

We know in more advanced societies they are now using cameras at trafficlights which are monitored and can be used in court. Another thing we can do,Senator—well, quite frankly, barring the “Eye On You”, where we will havepolicemen, I think it is really a matter for the traffic police.

Now, one of the bills that will be coming to this Parliament has to do withtraffic wardens and revising the ticket system. Now, that is where we will be ableto have most police officers, not just traffic police. You see, the police are invarious divisions and it is not often that a policeman on his way to court, is goingto want to concern himself with somebody driving badly to issue a ticket. I trustthat the new ticket system which will be more manageable—I think we will get itdown to this size, [Shows small writing pad] as opposed to the large billboardsyou see the police officers with—and will provide some relief, because officerson point duty, as they call it, will be able to deal with that.


One of the things the Commissioner of Police is doing, which he has referredto as smart policing, is a study of where things occur and putting people there,albeit of a temporary nature, to deal with those who break the law. They cannotstay there all the time but at least the word will get around that police arenormally at this intersection. It is an on-going battle with the public.

Sen. Prof. Spence: Mr. President, that is precisely the point I made. If,breaking of traffic lights is becoming so frequent that anywhere that one puts apoliceman on duty at traffic lights, they are bound to get some people breakingthe traffic lights, they can be apprehended. I was asking if I, as a citizen, could goto the Police Complaints Authority and say that, “Look, the police are notfunctioning as I think they should to apprehend.” That is one example. The otherexample was a glaring public flouting of the law and no action on the part of thepolice. So, can I complain?

Sen. Brig. The Hon. J. Theodore: Senator, the Police Complaints Authorityis not the place for that. The Commissioner of Police is the person because he isthe one who supervises the deployment of the police. It is not that the police aredoing something wrong by not being there, what you are telling the commissioneris, there is no policeman there. I am a member of the driving public; I pass thisintersection every day and there are people breaking the lights all the time; maybeyou need to put a patrol car there or put a policeman there. So, it is the police todeal with that. From the experience I have had, there is normally a positiveresponse when a member of the public makes a complaint.

So, yes, Senator, you can make a complaint and bring it to the attention of thecommissioner. Why I say the commissioner is because the district police stationmay not be the place at which to direct your complaint. The commissioner wouldthen tell the station in the district to post officers at that intersection at such andsuch a time. That is how it would be done.

Sen. Prof. Spence: And the second example, the savannah, can I also go tothe commissioner for that? I gave the example where the law was broken by thepaving of the savannah and no action was taken. Can I also go to thecommissioner to ask him to act?

Sen. Brig. The Hon. J. Theodore: I guess so. Of course, you can go to thecommissioner. What will become of it, I cannot give you any assurance. But, byall means, if there is something that displeases you and you are of the opinion thatthe law has been broken, yes, the Commissioner of Police is the person, by allmeans. Do not ask me what he will do about it.


834

Sen. Prof. Spence: Not displeases me, but where the law has been broken.

Sen. Brig. The Hon. J. Theodore: Yes. You are quite correct.

Sen. Prof. Spence: I am somewhat worried, Mr. President, that the hon.Minister cannot give me the assurance that when the law is broken, theCommissioner of Police will act. That does not help me really.

Sen. Brig. The Hon. J. Theodore: Well, we can make it a test case. Let us doit, then you can tell us how it worked out. But I would say, yes, if there is any lawenforcement agency that you should approach, it is the police service. Yes, by allmeans.

Well, I think we have ventilated this amendment sufficiently and I am gratefulfor the contributions made. It gave us all an opportunity to talk about many thingsother than the Police Complaints Authority.

Mr. President, I beg to move,

Question put and agreed to.Bill accordingly read a second time.Bill committed to a committee of the whole Senate.Senate in committee.Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.Question proposed, That clause 4 stand part of the Bill.Sen. Mohammed: I was wondering whether the hon. Minister would consider

a minor amendment to clause 4, that is, as it relates to new clause 17B(1)(b). I amsuggesting that we insert in line 2 of new clause 17B(1)(b):

“a copy of the statement of accounts audited by the Auditor General ofTrinidad and Tobago…”

Because nowhere in this amendment do they state who—Sen. Brig. Theodore: We did take into account the Senator’s comment. The

amendment the Government would like to propose is as follows:

Renumber section “17A” as “17A(1)” and insert a 17A(2) to read as follows:

“17A(2) The Accounts of the authority shall be audited annually by theAuditor General or by an auditor authorised by him for such purpose.”


Will that suffice?

Sen. Mohammed: Certainly.

Mr. Chairman: There is a proposed amendment by the hon. Minister asfollows:

Renumber section “17A” as “17A(1)” and insert a 17A(2) to read as follows:

“17A(2) The Accounts of the authority shall be audited annually by theAuditor General or by an auditor authorised by him for such purpose.”

Sen. Mohammed: Can you say instead:

“The annual accounts of the Authority shall be audited by the Auditor Generalor such person designated…”

Sen. Brig. Theodore: But new clause 17B already suggests that the accountswill be submitted annually.

Sen. Mohammed: Yes. My point is to ensure that we stipulate who shall dothe auditing and we are doing that.

Sen. Brig. Theodore: Yes.

Sen. Mohammed: But you were saying that we need to put an annual audit?

Sen. Brig. Theodore: Yes. We were saying:

“…audited by the Auditor General annually…”Sen. Mohammed: Annually.Sen. Brig. Theodore: Which means they have to produce it.5.35 p.m.Mr. Chairman: Are there any further discussions?Sen. Dr. Mc Kenzie: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering why we have to, again,

state “for that purpose” having stated the purpose at the beginning. Why do wenot cut it off by that and finish—by the Auditor General or somebody designatedby him or her, and finish?

Sen. Brig. Theodore: Do you mean for that purpose?

Sen. Mohammed: If you look at clause 17(2) it talks about an annual reportand audited statement of account. If you leave it just to be audited by the AuditorGeneral or such other person designated—you know it is the audited statement ofaccount you are referring to.


836

Sen. Brig. Theodore: What the drafters are telling us is that if we simply say: “orby an auditor authorized by him”—in drafting for such purpose means to audit thatparticular account. I think it is purely a matter of the drafting, it does not change thesense of it. What we are seeking to do here is to ensure that there is—[Interruption]

Sen. Mohammed: An audited statement. So we can refer to it as the auditedstatement from henceforth.

Sen. Brig Theodore: Right. We do have “audited statement” in section17B(2). Is that okay?

Sen. Mohammed: Yes, Fine.Mr. Chairman: It remains as proposed.Question put and agreed.Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.Question proposed, That clause 7 stand part of the Bill.Mr. Chairman: There is a proposed amendment circulated by the hon. Minister.Sen. Brig. Theodore: Mr. Chairman, I beg to move that clause 7 be amended

as follows:Delete and substitute the following:

“Section 27repealed andsubstituted

7. Section 27 of the Act is repealed and substitutedas follows:

“Reviewed byCommissioner

27. (1) The Commissioner shall reviewall reports submitted by the Divisionunder this Part, and unless notice of anapplication for a review of the findingsis served on the authority inaccordance with section 30, theCommissioner may immediately—

(a) refer the matter to the Director ofPublic Prosecutions where the reportrecommends this course of action;

(b) take such action as he thinks fit—


(i) with respect to members of thePolice Service, in accordancewith the Police ServiceRegulations or the PoliceService CommissionRegulations as the case may be;

(ii) with respect to members of theSpecial Reserve Police inaccordance with the SpecialReserve Police Act; and

Act. No. 21 of 1990 (iii) with respect to members of theMunicipal Police Force inaccordance with suchRegulations as are made by theService Commission pursuant tosection 60 of the MunicipalCorporations Act, or suchRegulations made under thePolice Service Act as theCommission deems applicable.

(2) The Commissioner shall also givenotice in writing to the Authority, thecomplainant and the police officer concernedof the action taken under subsection (1),giving the reasons for such action.

Chap. 24:01 (3) In this section, ‘Service Commission’ meansthe Statutory Authorities’ Service Commissionestablished under the Statutory Authorities Act.’”

What we are attempting to do here, Mr. Chairman, is instead of starting at 27B,if we look at the original Act you will see where we are simply repeating 27(1) that is contained in theAct. Rather than do it piecemeal, we thought we would repeal the whole section and put a whole newsection. The purpose of doing this is to cater for the municipal police who were inadvertently left out,because you will see special reserve police. What we have done is added a section III which states:

“with respect to members of the Municipal Police Force in accordance withsuch Regulations as are made by the Service Commission pursuant to section60 of the Municipal Corporations Act, or such Regulations made under thePolice Service Act as the Commission deems applicable.”


838

The balance is straight from the original Act.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any contributions?

Question put and agreed to.Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.Question put and agreed to, That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the

Senate.

Senate resumed.Bill reported, with amendments, read the third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

The Minister of Public Administration (Sen. The Hon. Wade Mark): Mr.President, before moving the adjournment, next week is Private Members’ Day,that is Tuesday, February 29 and we shall continue with Sen. Prof. J. Kenny’sPrivate Motion.

I beg to move, that this Senate do now adjourn to Tuesday, February 29, 2000at 1.30 p.m.

Question put and agreed to.Senate adjourned accordingly.Adjourned at 5.42 p.m.

Documents

20000222, Senate Debates - Tuesday, February 22, 2000 · 2008-08-05 · Oral Answer to Question Tuesday, February 22, 2000 769 Under the Fifth Schedule of the Tobago House of Assembly